PERSPECTIVES OF ART HISTORIANS
Art historians have contributed greatly to the world’s view of art. It may be said art historians shape the world’s view of art. It may also be said each historian has their particular area of interest and focus. Some study one artist for a lifetime and some historians make great attempts to define the meaning of art with the changing winds of cultural unrest; including the view of war as a trajectory to great movements in art. For instance, much study has taken place among art historians regarding Pablo Picasso’s mural, Guernica, particularly the meaning behind his use of imagery and painting style.
As with any study it depends on how encompassing the lense of the observer is. In science~ the evolution of a small flower may be studied for years. Questions such as why does the flower change color? Why does it grow here and not there? Why has it developed a particular shape? Why does it need shade and not direct sun?
For many years, the flower may be studied, and yet the magnification of the research of the flower may be such that outer elements of the surrounding environment may be completely disregarded. Take for instance the small flying insect responsible for pollinating the flower.
Perhaps the flower changes its color to suit the insect, perhaps the flower evolves in such a way so it appeals in a parasitic manner to the green thumb of gardeners, who out of love for the beauty of the flower, propagate the species. This is how the flower survives. Blinded by the beauty of the flower, and confused by the changing qualities of the flower, the research scientist may overlook the most simple of explanations, and even forego the flower’s interaction with its environment and the entire web of it’s existence.
2.
The study of a work of art brings us to a similar predicament. Art historians researching the work of art and the artist ask the questions, “ Why cubism? What does the bull represent? What is the relationship between Picasso’s dreams and his choice of imagery?”
Artists have always had their muses and use their muses as mirrors upon which they project the way they see the world. Artists use everything in their life experience to create a mythological environment by which they weave a web complex with meaning. Picasso was no different.
So how can it be said that an art historian can lay claim to finding the source of why the art was made? Also, could it be said it is unwise for any student to take a single source as the truth?
This brings us to the five articles regarding Pablo Picasso’s painting, Guernica.
In reading the varying articles presented by the art historians on the meaning of the painting, it came to my attention art historians are as eager to place their mark on the deeper meaning of an artwork as the artist is to make his mark. Take for example the scientist and the flower. The flower doesn’t speak, but the scientist thinks, “ Quickly! I must resolve the history and meaning of this flower, so I can put my name on it’s stem, and the flower will always and forever be remembered in my name!”
With the exception of quoting Picasso on rare occasion as to his own analysis of his creation, so often it seemed in these readings the historians were oblivious to the artist’s intent. And to be fair, most artists would say beyond creating the thing, there is little to say about the piece once it is finished. Leaving this to the art historian, the critic, and the audience.
3.
From an outsider’s view, art history is necessary. For the artist rarely speaks about the “why” of his work, and therefore no one would know how to think about the work. If it were not for the historical reverence an art historian puts upon the meaning. Political unrest, war, love, unrequited love, abuse, abandonment, competition, spiritual unease. For these reasons and more, the five distinct and differing views of Picasso’s Guernica are agreeable on one level and laughable on another.
To summarize each article: Francis Frascina writes Guernica: An Emblem for Spaniards and claims Guernica was an emblem of anti-fascism to the Spaniards. He uses quotes from Picasso who claims his only propaganda was in the making of Guernica. He also discusses the meaning of “private imagery” and “public meaning”.
Herschel Chipp states in The First Step Toward Guernica there are twelve preliminary sketches of Guernica which are of non political motivation. Claiming instead Picasso’s lover, Marie-Therese Walter was his inspiration for the painting.
In Guernica: The Apocolypse of Representation, Kathleen Brunner writes she found an entire literary reference to Guernica in a play penned in 1580, The Siege of Numancia, written by Miguel de Cervantes.
In the article, How Guernica Fails: Applied Cubism and How Guernica Fails: Touch and Scale, Darley Banward reminds us he is also an artist and critiques Picasso by making the argument Picasso chose the wrong style in which to paint this piece. Banward says the cubist painting style was wrong for Guernica. He criticizes the mass and size of the painting saying it gave Picasso trouble with his paint handling. He also writes Guernica looks like a cartoon, and exhibits better as pieces and parts.
4.
Finally I come to the longest and most exaggerated piece by Alice Doumanian Tankard, Picasso on the Art Historian’s Couch with the subtle subtitle: Picasso’s Guernica after Ruben’s Horrors of War: A Comparative Study in Three Parts-Iconographic and Compositional, Stylistic, and Psychoanalytic.
First of all, the author should not make reference to a couch, as it refers to a psychological analysis of Picasso, and clearly the art historian is not a psychoanalyst~ although she gives herself credit as one as she gives the bulk of the article over to making reference to Picasso and his father in Freudian terms.
Of all the articles presented I found Francis Frascina’s to be the truest to history and fact. He admittedly writes, “ The mass of literature devoted to the ‘explanation’ and ‘meaning’ of the work has been characterized by diversity.”
Clearly what we see here is the underlying truth that no historian can remain completely objective. Each historian writing in this collected series has a separate view~whether it is socio-political, psychological, or about the process. And as with all history, there is always a personal investment on the part of the historian. Unless the art historian were to simply state the facts. Picasso painted the mural Guernica in the year 1937 to hang in the Paris World Fair. Beyond this, all is subject to a personalized account by the historian of what really happened, and this leaves the real matter up to a jury of readers who must be aware that varying opinions are simply that. History is rewritten. Meaning is contorted, and variables are subject to discrimination. It is for all these reasons Frascina’s article remains the most convincing to me as his writing style and research from news accounts objectively define the times and the situation.
5.
If I were an art historian, I might delve as deeply as I could into the artist’s own account, and in the end I would try to present with simplicity the facts and details of when and where and with what the work was created. Analyzing the social political temperature of the culture at the time, or giving a psychological profile of the artist opens up an entire world for the reader, as these articles show. However, in the case of art~ could any of this be proven as a real driving force behind the creation?
The real question may be, why do artists feel compelled to make art? Of course, they don’t live in a vacuum void of contact with the world. But for a student to focus on any one of these five discourses would alter their perspective of the work as a whole. As time passes, the work itself constantly changes in it’s meaning.
Art historians have the power to choose how they will present the meaning of a work, their research can reveal any perception they may have. The detective work they do can reveals some of the artist’s motivations, but can it ever reveal the whole intent?
This is why it is important for any person seeking information to look at multiple sources. Whereas each of these articles is singular in it’s approach~they have the benefit, as a whole, of exhibiting multiple perspectives to a single work of art.
Perception is a powerful tool. Even more powerful is one’s ability to override the habit of perceiving the world one way or another. A careful study of anything in the past will reveal not one or two points of view, but multiple views. Anything a historian chooses to see, or focus on, may become all they see. Mistakenly overlooking more diverse factors.
This is the main reason art history is essential, and yet dangerous. Who will cross check the reference of the art historian and challenge them? What artist will defend
6.
themselves against faulty analysis once they are dead and their journals and sketchbooks gone? It is necessary to have recorded history, but the question is whether the history is unbiased.
As with any study it depends on how encompassing the lense of the observer is. In science~ the evolution of a small flower may be studied for years. Questions such as why does the flower change color? Why does it grow here and not there? Why has it developed a particular shape? Why does it need shade and not direct sun?
For many years, the flower may be studied, and yet the magnification of the research of the flower may be such that outer elements of the surrounding environment may be completely disregarded. Take for instance the small flying insect responsible for pollinating the flower.
Perhaps the flower changes its color to suit the insect, perhaps the flower evolves in such a way so it appeals in a parasitic manner to the green thumb of gardeners, who out of love for the beauty of the flower, propagate the species. This is how the flower survives. Blinded by the beauty of the flower, and confused by the changing qualities of the flower, the research scientist may overlook the most simple of explanations, and even forego the flower’s interaction with its environment and the entire web of it’s existence.
2.
The study of a work of art brings us to a similar predicament. Art historians researching the work of art and the artist ask the questions, “ Why cubism? What does the bull represent? What is the relationship between Picasso’s dreams and his choice of imagery?”
Artists have always had their muses and use their muses as mirrors upon which they project the way they see the world. Artists use everything in their life experience to create a mythological environment by which they weave a web complex with meaning. Picasso was no different.
So how can it be said that an art historian can lay claim to finding the source of why the art was made? Also, could it be said it is unwise for any student to take a single source as the truth?
This brings us to the five articles regarding Pablo Picasso’s painting, Guernica.
In reading the varying articles presented by the art historians on the meaning of the painting, it came to my attention art historians are as eager to place their mark on the deeper meaning of an artwork as the artist is to make his mark. Take for example the scientist and the flower. The flower doesn’t speak, but the scientist thinks, “ Quickly! I must resolve the history and meaning of this flower, so I can put my name on it’s stem, and the flower will always and forever be remembered in my name!”
With the exception of quoting Picasso on rare occasion as to his own analysis of his creation, so often it seemed in these readings the historians were oblivious to the artist’s intent. And to be fair, most artists would say beyond creating the thing, there is little to say about the piece once it is finished. Leaving this to the art historian, the critic, and the audience.
3.
From an outsider’s view, art history is necessary. For the artist rarely speaks about the “why” of his work, and therefore no one would know how to think about the work. If it were not for the historical reverence an art historian puts upon the meaning. Political unrest, war, love, unrequited love, abuse, abandonment, competition, spiritual unease. For these reasons and more, the five distinct and differing views of Picasso’s Guernica are agreeable on one level and laughable on another.
To summarize each article: Francis Frascina writes Guernica: An Emblem for Spaniards and claims Guernica was an emblem of anti-fascism to the Spaniards. He uses quotes from Picasso who claims his only propaganda was in the making of Guernica. He also discusses the meaning of “private imagery” and “public meaning”.
Herschel Chipp states in The First Step Toward Guernica there are twelve preliminary sketches of Guernica which are of non political motivation. Claiming instead Picasso’s lover, Marie-Therese Walter was his inspiration for the painting.
In Guernica: The Apocolypse of Representation, Kathleen Brunner writes she found an entire literary reference to Guernica in a play penned in 1580, The Siege of Numancia, written by Miguel de Cervantes.
In the article, How Guernica Fails: Applied Cubism and How Guernica Fails: Touch and Scale, Darley Banward reminds us he is also an artist and critiques Picasso by making the argument Picasso chose the wrong style in which to paint this piece. Banward says the cubist painting style was wrong for Guernica. He criticizes the mass and size of the painting saying it gave Picasso trouble with his paint handling. He also writes Guernica looks like a cartoon, and exhibits better as pieces and parts.
4.
Finally I come to the longest and most exaggerated piece by Alice Doumanian Tankard, Picasso on the Art Historian’s Couch with the subtle subtitle: Picasso’s Guernica after Ruben’s Horrors of War: A Comparative Study in Three Parts-Iconographic and Compositional, Stylistic, and Psychoanalytic.
First of all, the author should not make reference to a couch, as it refers to a psychological analysis of Picasso, and clearly the art historian is not a psychoanalyst~ although she gives herself credit as one as she gives the bulk of the article over to making reference to Picasso and his father in Freudian terms.
Of all the articles presented I found Francis Frascina’s to be the truest to history and fact. He admittedly writes, “ The mass of literature devoted to the ‘explanation’ and ‘meaning’ of the work has been characterized by diversity.”
Clearly what we see here is the underlying truth that no historian can remain completely objective. Each historian writing in this collected series has a separate view~whether it is socio-political, psychological, or about the process. And as with all history, there is always a personal investment on the part of the historian. Unless the art historian were to simply state the facts. Picasso painted the mural Guernica in the year 1937 to hang in the Paris World Fair. Beyond this, all is subject to a personalized account by the historian of what really happened, and this leaves the real matter up to a jury of readers who must be aware that varying opinions are simply that. History is rewritten. Meaning is contorted, and variables are subject to discrimination. It is for all these reasons Frascina’s article remains the most convincing to me as his writing style and research from news accounts objectively define the times and the situation.
5.
If I were an art historian, I might delve as deeply as I could into the artist’s own account, and in the end I would try to present with simplicity the facts and details of when and where and with what the work was created. Analyzing the social political temperature of the culture at the time, or giving a psychological profile of the artist opens up an entire world for the reader, as these articles show. However, in the case of art~ could any of this be proven as a real driving force behind the creation?
The real question may be, why do artists feel compelled to make art? Of course, they don’t live in a vacuum void of contact with the world. But for a student to focus on any one of these five discourses would alter their perspective of the work as a whole. As time passes, the work itself constantly changes in it’s meaning.
Art historians have the power to choose how they will present the meaning of a work, their research can reveal any perception they may have. The detective work they do can reveals some of the artist’s motivations, but can it ever reveal the whole intent?
This is why it is important for any person seeking information to look at multiple sources. Whereas each of these articles is singular in it’s approach~they have the benefit, as a whole, of exhibiting multiple perspectives to a single work of art.
Perception is a powerful tool. Even more powerful is one’s ability to override the habit of perceiving the world one way or another. A careful study of anything in the past will reveal not one or two points of view, but multiple views. Anything a historian chooses to see, or focus on, may become all they see. Mistakenly overlooking more diverse factors.
This is the main reason art history is essential, and yet dangerous. Who will cross check the reference of the art historian and challenge them? What artist will defend
6.
themselves against faulty analysis once they are dead and their journals and sketchbooks gone? It is necessary to have recorded history, but the question is whether the history is unbiased.



