Origin of Art
n article about the origin of the work of Art from Cyrille Bockstal (1st year engineer student) with help from :
Jonathan Brel
Nicolas Staudt
Arnaud Ongenae
François de Brouchoven de Bergeyck
Thibault Lecrenier
« En quoi la Peinture peut elle nous éclairer sur l’origine de l’œuvre d’art ? »
« How can Painting can enlighten us about the origin of the work of Art ? »
A work of art only exists through his maker , the artist himself. It couldn’t be made without the artist. But is he really the origin of the work of art ? It isn’t so simple... : we can say that the work of art exist thanks to the artist but the artist is nothing without his work , so it’s a vicious circle , does the art makes the artist or the contrary ?
But to study deeper the subject of the origin of the work of art (and , more precisly , the paintings) we need to understand why does man become an artist. Some works of art are made in order to honor gods , holy men , ... . Others are made to pass on a message , a concept,... when no other means can help.
We tried to confront the ideas of Martin Heidegger , a german philosopher and Umberto Eco , an italian one , both from the last century. Heidegger claims that a work of art is not a simple object. We’re forgetting the essence of art. When we like a statue , we’re seeing the statue as a work of art , and not a pile of stone. The art let the materials be freed. When Van Gogh draws the « peasant shoes » , he « liberates » the shoes : we can feel the woman wearing these and working in the fields. The shoes are more than just a nice picture , there’s Truth behind the image. Not truth like reality is (a feather fall slower than a rock) but genuine Truth. He sublimates the picture so we can understand it’s essence. Heidegger also mentions the fact that Greeks don’t make differences between an artisan and an artist. They share the same entomology. However , he makes a difference between a tool and a work of art. They both use materials to be made , but the art sublimate its materials not like a tool (the materials are used up in the making of the tool , we don’t see the wood and iron in a hammer like we see the stone of a beautiful sculpture). For Umberto Eco , open works are works of art that don’t give a precise message : they let the spectator creates his own meaning. Each work of art has a predetermined form but the meaning is not clear : the spectator has a lot of freedom. There were open works already in the Middle Ages with the theory of allegorism : each work can be interpreted in 4 different ways : litteral , allegorical , moral and analogical. In theater for example : in the « Antigone » play from Anouilh , he doesn’t tell the specators who’s right , he doesn’t take a side in the trial (Antigone of Creon) . He lets them make up their mind on their own. Sometimes , order is not important like in « Sequenza » from Luciano Berio . The listener may exchange multiple parts of the song without altering the essence of the music. Another work with no sequence is « le Livre » (an uncompleted one) where the reader may read the book in different orders wich may change the meaning of the book (but still being a coherent story) creating a whole world in it . For Umberto Eco , the spectator has a preponderant role in art itself . On the other hand , Heidegger thinks that the spectator hasn’t an important role in art : the artist and the work of art itself are much more important.
We also interviewed a secondary school art teacher , M. Tondeur . We asked her advice about our subject . She told us that there are a lot of definitions for Art , many possibilities. Art can be considered an object , a picture , a representation , a real or an abstract one. She also claims that Art can be a sort of necessity : humanity needs to open their mind to other people and Art may be one of the most used around the world. Some artists need to paint , write poem and so on… but some don’t need to show their work in public : they make art for themselves , from and for their own mind. Paintings are bidimensional and so are limited . But we can draw everything we want , we can put everything dwelling in our spirit on paper. So Art is both limited by its dimension and unlimited by its possibilities. The « void » and the « full » are both important in Art , like some Chinese drawings where there are forms but only void in them .Even children may understand art : for them , the « blue » on a painting isn’t a color but , in fact , it represents something or someone. She also told us that a work of art isn’t always an object but can also be an action or an idea (like a text on a wall) . Most people think that a work of art needs to have a body in order to exist , so , for them , an idea , a concept can’t be considered as Art . But an artist (she doesn’t remember his name) opened an art gallery about the « Void » and there was nothing in it. This kind of Art have no body so can this be considered as Art ? She claims that it can . Musei from our time may not have a good judgement about what can be considered as art and what can’t . Because , first , the one that chooses what to show is the curator , so if he think that something isn’t art , then it isn’t art for the whole museum . The other reason is that the museum needs money to exist so the curator often choose the most rentable ones even if others are more beautiful or have a deeper meaning . So everything that is shown in a museum is not Art ( Is a spear from the Middles Ages shown in a museum really Art ?) : the one who can choose if it is art or not is the Artist itself and no other . Does a work of art needs to be unique to be considered as Art ? If an artist draws a painting and then sells copies of it , is it still Art ? The mentality of the century when the work of art is shown may change the fact that it is art or not . So is Art an universal thing ? If the concept of Art changes from an Age to another , Art may not be considered as universal … . And finally , when we asked her if paintings can enlighten us about the origin of Art , she admitted that she’s not sure about it , but maybe that the paintings from the Prehistoric Age may be the origin of Art and the other forms of Art (poetry , sculpture , …) are based on these first paintings .
So , in conclusion , we can say that Art has a lot of different origins : Heidegger thinks that the Artist is the key in understanding art , and that Art is made in order to uncover the Truth behind the reality , wich is a prison for the imagination . Umberto Eco claims that the spectator is at least as important as the artist himself : thanks to the spectators , a work of art can’t be jailed in only one meaning : each spectator gives another meaning to the work of Art , so it has unlimited meanings . Art exist because mankind needs to share their ideas , their feelings with other people. That may be impossible with more conventional ways , so Art is the key to overcome this obstacle . There is an exchange between the spectator and the work : the work of Art gives birth to new emotions and ideas in the mind of the spectator . On the other hand , the spectator gives a new , deeper meaning to the work itself. However , there is an obstacle preventing us from really understanding the origin of the work of art : we can’t truly understand the origin of Art with only paintings , we need to broaden our definition and study other means of sharing emotions , like music , sculpture , poetry and so on… because Art is a whole world and poetry , music ,… only parts of it. We can’t study the world if we don’t study all the parts of it .
We made this study as engineers because , like Heidegger claims , there is no difference between a craftsman and an artist . Engineers may be considered both : we build tools to help other people , like the craftsman , but we try to share our emotions with it , like the Artist . Cyrille Bockstal