Discuss the Book as a Whole: Forgotten Heroes

[Jessica]

Meissonier serves as a cautionary tale for anyone working in the arts: lauded in his own lifetime, forgotten (or reviled) after his death. Is this an inevitable swinging of the pendulum that continues today? Are our children and grandchildren inevitably bound to reverse our aesthetic values and topple our heroes from their pedestals?

---

Reply to this message to discuss any of these topics. Or start your own new topic by clicking "New Message."

Note: This topic refers to the book as a whole.

[Mariposa]

---

Jessica wrote:

Meissonier serves as a cautionary tale for anyone working in the arts: lauded in his own lifetime, forgotten (or reviled) after his death. Is this
an inevitable swinging of the pendulum that continues today? Are our children and grandchildren inevitably bound to reverse our aesthetic values and
topple our heroes from their pedestals?

---

Reply to this message to discuss any of these topics. Or start your own new topic by clicking "New Message."

Note: This topic refers to the book as a whole.

---

Yes, but what about the ones who were reviled in their lifetime and lauded after their death? Somehow that bothers me more...

I think there are always changes in taste and culture, but the fact that museums are still drawing serious crowds to exhibits of artists who have been dead for a long time testifies to the fact that not all our heroes have been toppled from their pedestals. I think, for example, the reopening at the Metropolitan Museum of Art of the Greek and Roman galleries next week will prove my point. That is about as far from Terence Koh as you can get...

Lizabeth

[ross_king]

---

dianearbus wrote:

I think there are always changes in taste and culture, but the fact that museums are still drawing serious crowds to exhibits of artists who have been dead for a long time testifies to the fact that not all our heroes have been toppled from their pedestals. I think, for example, the reopening at the Metropolitan Museum of Art of the Greek and Roman galleries next week will prove my point. That is about as far from Terence Koh as you can get...

Lizabeth

---

There will always be (I hope) an appetite for "great art," or what Manet like to call "art with a capital A" - that is, serious works that tell us about a society or culture and its values, self-definition, aspirations, technologies, etc. Terence Koh, like a number of other current artists, raises an interesting question. In the "old days," an artist created something (a statue, a painting) with the conviction that it would be appreciated by posterity. That’s why fresco was such a prized medium in the Italian Renaissance: it was the most durable and lasting form of painting. When you painted in fresco, you had the assurance (overly optimistic in some cases) that your work would be seen and appreciated by future generations.

However, what about the kinds of media in which artists like Terence Koh are working? Sculptors will often use their own blood and ... um ... other bodily fluids in a work of art. I’m not an expert on conservation issues in art, but I suspect these kinds of works don’t have a very long shelf-life (though that may be the point of some of them). A couple of years ago there was a story in the British papers about a sculpture by Marc Quinn, made of his own congealed blood, that melted down when someone accidentally unplugged the refrigerator where it was kept.

A work of art that depends on the electrical supply is probably doomed in the long run. But how will these sorts of works (and accidents involving power cords) affect the way we’re seen by future generations? Can an artist working in perishable materials ever count on posterity? Inevitably your reputation will dip after your death if none of your work survives.

[Mariposa]

Is it possible that artists today (or am I generalizing too much) are more concerned with fame in their life time than posterity?

I also wondered about my reaction specifically to the Koh piece at the Whitney. I remember saying to myself, "The emperor has no clothes."

Do you know the piece? You try to look at it and are told not to look at it because it will hurt your eyes. The security guard stationed by the exhibit wears sunglasses. You cannot enter the room either. So what is there? Blinding light. Is that art?

Then I question myself. Is my reaction to Koh parallel to the Salon's reaction to Manet? I would hate to think myself as a close-minded traditionalist, but...

Lizabeth

[ross_king]

I don’t know that particular Koh installation, but I’m very sympathetic to your plight, Lizabeth. I suppose we must ask ourselves whether we resist a work because of our own prejudices, or whether the art simply doesn’t connect with us on the level where we want to be engaged, or whether the work of art itself is simply banal or offensive or patronizing or pointless. This last option - that the work is simply bad art - is always a possibility.

Most of us, faced with a baffling piece of conceptual art, can probably identify with Théophile Gautier’s lament over Manet’s art. Gautier had been very much in the avant-garde as a young man, but suddenly the next generation - Manet & Co. - arrived on the scene, and Gautier felt like an old fogey because he couldn’t appreciate their paintings: "One examines oneself with a sort of horror," he wrote, "to discover whether one has become obese or bald, incapable of understanding the audacities of youth." But he then speculated that, in a generation or two, Manet would look orthodox - which is exactly what happened, since Van Gogh, Gauguin and the Post-Impressionists began doing work that was even more audacious and adventurous than Manet. By that time, luckily for him, Gautier was dead!

Artists who are fashionable and being lauded by the critics today, and whose works sell for millions of dollars, must contemplate the possibility that they are not Manets but rather Meissoniers - and that future generations will disparage them because of their fame. As the experience of the last 150 years shows, most painters celebrated by posterity toiled in anonymity and poverty; those celebrated in their own lifetimes with prestigious gallery shows and rave reviews from the top critics are now toiling in posthumous anonymity.

For anyone interested in the sort of work Koh is doing, there’s a good sample of hissculptures on the Saatchi Gallery's website:

http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artists/terence_koh.htm

[Jessica]

---

dianearbus wrote: Is it possible that artists today (or am I generalizing too much) are more concerned with fame in their life time than posterity?

---

Hi Lizbeth,

Reminds me of the line from "My Generation" -- I hope I die before I get old. (Meaning, everything meaningful happens in youth, and longevity is a sign of being out of the loop.)

I love The Who, but I always hoped the boys were being tongue-in-cheek when they sang this line. Of course, now that they're in their 60s, and are bona-fide rock legends, I seriously doubt they regret living this long... (Then again, James Dean and Jimi Hendrix are considered legends, as well. Hmmm.)

Politicians worry a lot about their legacy, but I think artists have an even harder road to walk when it comes to establishing themselves as legends. (Messonier worried about this a great deal, and though he tried and tried, he barely has name recognition.)

The intriguing question for me is whether or not our current legends will continue to be so. Speaking more to the original question in this thread, I think legends are few and far between. A hundred years from now, I think certain names will still be in the public vocabulary -- The Rolling Stones, MLK, Bette Davis -- but imagine if they're not? *Imagine* if someone like Avril Lavigne is looked to as THE sound of the new century? What has to take place in a culture for this feeling to be congealed over the next hundred years, in order for her to be considered a legend? *Imagine* if no one remembers Basquiat. What has to happen for us to forget his impact?

Sounds far-fetched, but I bet when Messonier's "Friedland" fetched an initial offer of 150,000 francs the buyer probably thought he had figured out which artist among the pack was destined for longevity. (Manet's "Le Dejeuner" could only attract 3,000 francs...)

Thankfully, regardless of which figures gain hero status, we can do our own research, as lovers of culture, and rediscover long-forgoten artists who can inspire us all over again and round out our understanding of an era (like we've done here with Messionier).

Like Lizbeth, I now look at current artists and wonder if I'm in the presence of an icon in the making, or just another one-hit wonder. Anyone else?

Jessica
Book Club Editor

[Mariposa]

Ross King wrote:

"A work of art that depends on the electrical supply is probably doomed in the long run. But how will these sorts of works (and accidents involving power cords) affect the way we’re seen by future generations? Can an artist working in perishable materials ever count on posterity? Inevitably your reputation will dip after your death if none of your work survives"

This came up also during the gallery talk on Jeff Wall. Because many of his photographs are back lit (if that is the correct term), someone in the group questioned the effect of the lighting on the photograph itself. Would the photograph endure in years to come or be damaged because of the lighting? The guide responded that some of them have lasted more than 20 years.

But twenty years is a mere drop in the bucket of time...

And the discussion about power supplies etc never came up.

So back to Terence Koh. Thank you so much for the link. I think the works shown there are much more complex and interesting than the piece at the Whitney. But again, you are right, can they survive because of the material (ahem) used? The materials in some of them are quite "original" and I don't think anyone has yet studied what will happen to substances of that sort over time.

Yet then I begin to think about Robert Smithson and how he felt the decomposition of his art was part of his art. The way in which nature changed and interacted with his pieces were part of the artistic process that he had begun and that continued even after he left the work. So the work itself was never intended to be stable..


Lizabeth

[ross_king]

---

Jessica wrote:

---

The intriguing question for me is whether or not our current legends will continue to be so.

Jessica
Book Club Editor

---

An interesting variable to consider when we debate who survives and who’ll be forgotten - especially in something like popular music or bestselling novels - is commercial success. Does huge commercial success in your lifetime guarantee that you’ll be remembered long after your death? Will album or book sales of 30 or 40 million guarantee immortality? You’d almost think so, but the example of Meissonier (moving back into the realm of art) would seem to say no. He was the most commercially successful painter of the 19th century, a household name across Europe, and yet he managed to disappear into deep oblivion. Okay, maybe that’s not quite the same thing as selling 40 million albums and doing a heavy rotation on MTV, but it does seem to indicate that money and sales alone are *not* the reason you’re remembered. There has to be something else besides.

[ross_king]

---

dianearbus wrote:
Yet then I begin to think about Robert Smithson and how he felt the decomposition of his art was part of his art. The way in which nature changed and interacted with his pieces were part of the artistic process that he had begun and that continued even after he left the work. So the work itself was never intended to be stable..


Lizabeth

---

Artists do often make philosophical points through works of art that naturally decompose. There’s a sculptor named Jana Sterbak who works in raw meat. The decay of her "meat dresses" (which go on display with no refrigeration or curing) is the entire point of the works, which are about mortality and death and our obsession with food and fashion.

[Mariposa]

I just finished reading the part where Friedland is finally displayed and doesn't meet the reception Meissonier hoped for. He was criticized for being too anatomically correct in his depiction of a galloping horse which was then not true to life. A galloping horse does not look like a horse at rest. You can't possibly see every detail.

"What Meissonier saw as he watched anatomical dissections or rode alongside Colonel Dupressoir's galloping cuirassiers did not tally with the blurry and indistinct impressions of equinine locomotion gained, for example, by spectators positioned beside the finishing post at Longchamp."

He was defeated by his own perfectionism.


Lizabeth

[ross_king]

One thing that probably contributed to Meissonier’s downfall was photography. Meissonier himself didn’t feel threatened by photography and, like many other artists, he used it himself in order to make studies for his paintings. But in the 1860s and 1870s photography was still fairly primitive, and no camera could ever capture everything that a painter like Meissonier could. It wasn’t until the late 1870s, when Eadweard Muybridge developed his high-speed camera, that Meissonier’s art began to look obsolete. What was the point in spending 10 years on a freeze-frame image on canvas when someone like Muybridge could record it in a second or two?

There’s a sad story about Meissonier being shown Muybridge’s photographs of a galloping horse and realizing that he got his charging horses wrong in Friedland. (This was in 1879.) He burst into tears and said, "Never shall I touch a brush again." He did paint again ... but the camera had proved mightier than the brush, or at least the brush of Meissonier. He didn't realize that true art didn't necessarily reside in capturing every single last little detail.

There’s a good book by Rebecca Solnit on Eadweard Muybridge and his work in photography: it’s called River of Shadows.

[hasenbein]

---

ross_king wrote:

---

dianearbus wrote:

I think there are always changes in taste and culture, but the fact that museums are still drawing serious crowds to exhibits of artists who have been dead for a long time testifies to the fact that not all our heroes have been toppled from their pedestals. I think, for example, the reopening at the Metropolitan Museum of Art of the Greek and Roman galleries next week will prove my point. That is about as far from Terence Koh as you can get...

Lizabeth

---

There will always be (I hope) an appetite for "great art," or what Manet like to call "art with a capital A" - that is, serious works that tell us about a society or culture and its values, self-definition, aspirations, technologies, etc. Terence Koh, like a number of other current artists, raises an interesting question. In the "old days," an artist created something (a statue, a painting) with the conviction that it would be appreciated by posterity. Thatâ  s why fresco was such a prized medium in the Italian Renaissance: it was the most durable and lasting form of painting. When you painted in fresco, you had the assurance (overly optimistic in some cases) that your work would be seen and appreciated by future generations.

However, what about the kinds of media in which artists like Terence Koh are working? Sculptors will often use their own blood and ... um ... other bodily fluids in a work of art. Iâ  m not an expert on conservation issues in art, but I suspect these kinds of works donâ  t have a very long shelf-life (though that may be the point of some of them). A couple of years ago there was a story in the British papers about a sculpture by Marc Quinn, made of his own congealed blood, that melted down when someone accidentally unplugged the refrigerator where it was kept.

A work of art that depends on the electrical supply is probably doomed in the long run. But how will these sorts of works (and accidents involving power cords) affect the way weâ  re seen by future generations? Can an artist working in perishable materials ever count on posterity? Inevitably your reputation will dip after your death if none of your work survives.

---

Ross,

I'm wondering about some art that's for the moment, spontaneous, an experience. Live Jazz seems to be a good example of this idea in music. Stokaleidoscopesaleidescopes, gardens, etc. Things that can constantly change. I'm uncertain as to if and how this could be down with paints.

KathyH

[hasenbein]

---

ross_king wrote:
One thing that probably contributed to Meissonier’s downfall was photography. Meissonier himself didn’t feel threatened by photography and, like many other artists, he used it himself in order to make studies for his paintings. But in the 1860s and 1870s photography was still fairly primitive, and no camera could ever capture everything that a painter like Meissonier could. It wasn’t until the late 1870s, when Eadweard Muybridge developed his high-speed camera, that Meissonier’s art began to look obsolete. What was the point in spending 10 years on a freeze-frame image on canvas when someone like Muybridge could record it in a second or two?

There’s a sad story about Meissonier being shown Muybridge’s photographs of a galloping horse and realizing that he got his charging horses wrong in Friedland. (This was in 1879.) He burst into tears and said, "Never shall I touch a brush again." He did paint again ... but the camera had proved mightier than the brush, or at least the brush of Meissonier. He didn't realize that true art didn't necessarily reside in capturing every single last little detail.

There’s a good book by Rebecca Solnit on Eadweard Muybridge and his work in photography: it’s called River of Shadows.

---

And he should have watched children paint. I like to view paintings that show what the artist saw, not necessarily an exact detail of what was there. It brings the artist into the painting.

KathyH

[ross_king]

---

hasenbein wrote:

I'm wondering about some art that's for the moment, spontaneous, an experience. Live Jazz seems to be a good example of this idea in music. Stokaleidoscopesaleidescopes, gardens, etc. Things that can constantly change. I'm uncertain as to if and how this could be down with paints.

KathyH

---

I guess paint always presupposes the aim for a certain longevity. Maybe an example of beautiful graphic designs not meant to last are street paintings like those done at the annual festival in San Rafael, California. The transience of something can make you appreciate it all the more.

What’s a Stokaleidoscopesaleidescope?!

[hasenbein]

I must have hit some kind of repeat key!

KathyH

[ross_king]

I thought maybe it was some kind of exciting new artistic movement that I'd never heard of!