I'm currently finding it really hard trying to cut down my image analysis essay and figuring out whats important to keep in and what isn't, the problem with writing such a short piece on three images in that theres so much information and so much to say, especially after i had already done in depth preparation sheets for all three images beforehand - although this did make the writing of the piece much, much easier. I'm going to re read and review the essay tommorow with a fresh mind and try to think carefully how much information I can make a decision to get rid of before the draft hand in on Friday.
below is simply my first draft of the essay without anything removed because I thought even if it doesnt make the final cut there will be information here that shows my research and understanding and should still be blogged about.
The first image I’m focusing on is ‘Mr and Mrs andrews’ by Gainsborough painted in 1748 with oil paints on canvas. The painting shows two luxuriously dressed white aristocrats, the man stood leaning in a relaxed manner on a rococo bench and the woman sat elegantly. The reason I chose this painting is because it's a clear example of how art used to only be accessible to the rich, as mentioned in my triangulation essay the only people able to afford the materials and artists to commission such a painting were royalty or wealthy landowners and so controlled almost all of the art created and sold.
Mr and mrs andrews is, in my opinion, a prime example of a painting commissioned to boast and to show off wealth. The couple are both very fair skinned and pale, another indication of class, both mr and mrs andrews are ‘pale and lithe’ as Dr abraham Fox comments this reflects the ‘upper class privilege of not having to work for a living’ probably the main indication if the wealth of the young couple is the large stretch of land behind them, this is not simply an appreciation of art it is a trademark of wealth and success. This painting is not commissioned to be seen in a gallery, but to be admired at in their home by a select circle of the upper class - the way the figures are positioned in front of the grounds they own highlight this fact. John berger sums it up perfectly by saying ‘among the pleasures their portrait gave to mr and mrs andrews was the pleasure of seeing themselves depicted as landowners and this pleasure was enhanced by the ability of oil paint to render their land in all its substantiality.” I don’t want it to come across that I’m insulting gainsborough or his work, I'm not, i'm simply commenting on the situation of the art market at this time and that this painting is a good visual example of the points I am trying to convey.
Not only does the painting signify clear class relations it also involves gendered ones. We are not really looking at two landowners, but at one. The difference in posture even gives us a clear view that mr andrews is comfortable here, with his dog and his gun in his hand he is in charge he owns everything in this painting including his wife who is sat much more stiffly and statutory. As gillian rose observes ‘Mrs andrews is painted as almost part of that still and exquisite landscape’
On the other hand some critics argue that the great expanse of land in the piece is nothing to do with wealth or affirmation of status but instead ‘allows Gainsborough to display his skills as a painter of convincingly changing weather and naturalistic scenery.’ and the image was celebrated in such a way, as a masterpiece rather than an example of the art of the elite, for a long time. For me personally I can see the skill in such a painting but I can never consider it a master[eie as it communicates nothing to me apart from the earlier negative critiques i have given and for that reason it doesn't move me as an image in anyway. Because of its nature and the reason for its creation as well a its originally intended audience it's rather an inaccessible piece of art.
Following along the same lines of commision and ownership i was looking into renaissance art , as claude levi strauss comments ‘we must not forget, when we are dealing with Renaissance painting, that it was only possible because of the immense fortunes which were being amassed in Florence and elsewhere, and that rich Italian merchants looked upon painters as agents, who allowed them to confirm their possession of all that was beautiful and desirable in the world’
However when researching one of the most famous pieces, michelangelo's david, I found out there was a lot more too it than meets the eye. The 5.16 meter, 5,660 kg statue was carved between 1501 and 1504 from a block of white marble. The block of marble was rejected twice by two other sculptors due to too many impurities before michelangelo took up the challenge and worked on the sculpture for 2 years.
‘The statute appears to show David after he has made the decision to fight Goliath but before the battle has actually taken place, a moment between conscious choice and action’ this was the first time david had ever been sculpted before the battle rather than victorious afterwards and gave him an interesting air of intrigue and contemplation.
The most interesting thing about the statue and the reason I wanted to focus on it is that after its completion, although originally commissioned by the church it ended up being donated as public art put in the main square. At the time of its complete italy and specifically florence was in political unrest with the recent fall of the medicis. The medici family are specifically mentioned in the quote in which I am studying ‘the Medici family, whose love of the arts bolstered the status of Renaissance painters in the sixteenth century’ and were a huge controlling power over art and culture in florence at the time. But by the time the statue was finished the medici's were seen as tyrants and had been kicked out of Florence.
To the people the estate of david in the public square meant a lot to them, it symbolised the people's power and hope against powers like the exiled medicis and represented the little guys successful fight against the big guy. Florentines adopted the David as a symbol of their own struggle against the Medici and the sculpture is an interesting example of art not facilitating the the rich but representing the people. Some theorists believe the positioning of the statue was also political and that david's eyes are ‘turned towards rome’ with a ‘warning glare’.
This piece of work is an exception to the rule of rich private ownership and control of art and culture at the time, it could be argued that the church themselves who commissioned the piece were a rich power and had an agenda in putting a religious piece of art in a public place, but it was what the people wanted, it was a gift to a very christian community at the time who the work became a symbol of something bigger too and most importantly it was intellectually accessible to them. The sculpture was something they could understand and relate too. The biblical figure represents liberty and freedom from Republican ideals, florence's people standing up for them self
Not everyone appreciated the statute however and in its early days was attacked twice because of its political undertones. The medicis has also commissioned a bronze david made by the sculptor donatello in around 1440 and had been placed in the Palazzo della Signoria, michelangelo's statue was placed in roughly the same position by the florentine authorities which ‘ensured that David would be seen as a political parallel’.
What I wanted to focus on last through the example of specific artwork is the way in which the upper class still have a lot control and influence over art in the 20th century. Although the influence of the rich is not as evident as it was both in the medici's time and in gainsborough's time, the influence is still there now just in more subtle ways. In my triangulation essay I touched very briefly on the idea of the art market which I want to go into more detail with here, using damien hirst The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living’ as an example. The 85.5 x 213.4 x 70.9 in tank shows a real 13 foot tiger shark, weighing 2 tons and suspended and filled with formaldehyde to stop it from rotting. The piece was commissioned by charles saatchi for £50,000. In saachi was involved in the 1991 young british artist movement between him and goldsmiths, which was often criticised with a lot of elitism and a focus on money. Hirst was one of the most prominent artists at the time to come out of this london movement and his earlier pieces such as the physical impossibility of death in the mind of someone living, became extremely popular in the art trade, the became economically valuable and more importantly elite.
hirst was originally lower class, growing up in leeds and even stealing art materials, but he definitely ended up having a fascination with profit money and accumulation of expensive art. Hirst commented to the independent in 2000 “I think becoming a brand name is a really important part of life.” Hirst achieved this is a way, many people criticise his work as being eclipsed by money and generating its intrigue through its price tag rather than its content, as the bloomberg press comment ‘his work found particular favor with art investors who prized it as much for its appreciating value as its aesthetics.. This is as much because of charles saatchi's involvement with the work as it is with hirst's approach to his art, they enjoyed a strong partnership for around a decade and each were good for each others reputation in the commercial art world but hirst actually split from saatchi claiming ‘he only recognises art with his wallet’ some argue hirst takes a similar approach, the London’s Sunday Times estimates his fortune at around $350 million, making him the richest artist in the world whereas contemporaries such as picasso never sold a painting for over £50,000
The physical impossibility of death, like a lot of hirst's work is fairly inaccessible to the general public, they are told because they do not understand it they simply do not understand art, but does any of hirst's work genuinely have expressive and accessible meaning? Hirst explains ‘In keeping with the piece's title, the shark is simultaneously life and death incarnate in a way you don't quite grasp until you see it, suspended and silent, in its tank. It gives the innately demonic urge to live a demonic, deathlike form.’ it is arguable that there is meaning behind hirst's work and that he himself puts a lot of thought and meaning into. Sadly however hirst is a prime example of a modern art world run by money, it's as jonathan jones in the guardian comments, ‘Art is a luxury, the ultimate luxury. Imagine the glory of having an original work of art by a great artist on your wall. It beats the best car, the best helicopter. Art is money and if you want people to know your wealth, you must buy art.’
Hirst has more recently has spent £25m to build a gallery on newport street where he will curate exhibitions assembled from his own art collection. Is this him appreciating his art and wanting to share it with people or as some critics argue, ‘promoting his own view of contemporary art through the medium of a big, public gallery.. testing his power to shape tastes and markets, and his ability to exert control.’ this goes back to my main argument in my triangulation essay that gallery spaces often assert elitism. Another major problem with the newport street gallery is its being built in an area of london which up until now has been avoiding the problem of gentrification. Even though hirst's gallery will be free to enter. Critics argue hirst's ‘apparent generosity is likely to be balanced by the increased value of the art shown there, which he of course owns.’ however the fair an important point is made that ‘to assume that Hirst’s greatest driver is money is to overlook his passion for art, and his compulsion to collect it.’ hirst split from saachi shows he's not comfortable with a solely money driven view of art, looking at pieces simply in terms of how they may increase or decrease in value like simply market stock. However unfortunately for hirst that is what his work has become. His formaldehyde shark being sold to rich business man and art collector Steve cohen. £6.5 million less than two years ago. Jonathan jones echoes this sentiment asking, ‘How will the growing, grotesque disparity between our belief that we "own" modern art and the glaring reality that it is bought and sold by the super-rich, survive these times?’
