ART SHOULD BE THE BASIS OF EDUCATION
Gustave Courbet continued:
The center part of the artist’s studio is similar to the painting “melancholia”. Linda noclin
draws this analogy in her writings. Courbet was aware of this similarity so it’s on
purpose, he was reintroducing the idea of melancholy but also was subverting it.
Representation of poverty, injustice, negative effect of the social order adds social
weight to the painting
Linda nochlin approached the history of art from a feminist point of view and she is a
pioneer in this area.
Artist’s studio was realized with the support of photography (used many stills and
brought them together for this painting) , an effect of this technique was that the
painting didn’t have a narrative. It is a big sized painting where nthng happens. It is very
still (the representation of the figures). Everything is represented in the form of a
snapshot; figures are suspended in terms of action.
“Real allegory” is an opposition because the term doesn’t make sense.
The fact that the painting has no narration causes it to not make a sense
The birth of photography was really important for Courbet because it had a strong effect
on the way he interpreted the language of painting.
He was the antagonist of commune in paris.
Many of his paintings were exhibited in different salons. Courbet was a rebel and an
outsider, but he was also included in the salon -> a duality in his career.
Courbet was accepted to the salon in a certain extent with certain types of works like
self-portraits. However he wasn’t satisfied with these selections so he decided to build
an entire pavilion.
Pavillon du realisme: in order to have the possibility to show also the artworks rejected
by the salon, his own exhibition site financially supported by the people who supported
his are. He exhibited the artist’s studio in this pavilion along with a manifesto. He
showed the artworks together with the text. Pavilion was unsuccessful in terms of
business. It is another example how ambitious and modern was Courbet because he
took the refusal of salon and turned it into an opportunity to realize his own pavilion. He
didn’t want to accept the decision of the salon and he was convinced that a kind of a
painting required a specific type of place to be exhibited in.
In modern times artists are more and more concerned about the relationship between
their works and the context that their works are displayed in. the way in which their
works are exhibited is as important as the work itself.
Courbet’s pavilion was an open space with white walls used without specific
instructions.
Courbet wrote in manifesto of realism that his intention was not to represent from the
real, but it was to represent the real. The subject of his art is the reality without filter
and therefore this kind of art needed another space to be exhibited because it was
impossible to put these inside the salon.
The pavilion was a neutral space where the refused art of Courbet could be seen by the
large public.
, It is not by chance that his works in the salon weren’t far from the regular subject?
The wave (1869): representation of sea, landscape of the north part of France, it is
important because, painting after he experimented a lot and created many different
languages, one of the clearest examples of how much he anticipated the sensibility of
the modern painting. We see a timeless painting. If we remove the year of the work, you
can’t allocate the century. Turbulent and unstable representation of nature. Ultimate
representation of the political tension of the Courbet, he is a wave that’s pushing the
society in order to crash, changed to be destroyed and be reborn.
He always strived to change the current art scene and its cannons.
Brian O’Doherty – Inside the White Cube
An interesting figure for the contemporary art scene
Art critique, artist, born in 1928, Irish
Inside the white cube was the title of one of his essays, he then collected some essays
and turned them into a book named the same
Followed the development of the artistic research from the second part of 2 nd ww till
now
He was exhibited in different context
More of an art critique than a visual artist
Moved to the US from Dublin
Tv presenter, cartoonist, performer: versatile figure in 60-70s
An abstract artist, his art is conceptual
He is interested in the placement of the artwork into the space, installations,
environmental painting
The work is related to the place it is realized and exhibited
The relationship painting and space / the relationship between his personality and work:
he used to have many alter egos one was Patrick Ireland and he signed his works under
this name -> he started using it 1972 to protest the murder of 14 unarmed protestors in
Dublin (bloody Sunday), he performed under different names
He used to discuss the role of the artist in society, establishing a discourse about identity
and artist production in relation to the society
Open to different kinds of artistic expression
Oriented towards the concept of the role of the artist and society
Interested in understanding the mechanism between the art and the art system
Problem of identity, relationship between the painting and the space: talks about these
topics in his books “İnside the White Cube” and “Studio and cube”
White cube is the space we are supposed to see art in, it is anything but a neutral space.
No space is not neutral, even the white cube.
In his writing he revealed aspects of the artistic production from an insider pov.
Inside the white cube became a classic in contemporary art literature, considered a
fundamental bibliography.
He asked himself some basic questions: if there is a relationship between the artwork
and the space, what can we learn from this relationship? / What happens when an
, artwork is produced in a studio but exhibited in some other context? Does this alter
anything or not?
Between 60s and 70s, some cities like Paris and New York were bringing all players of
the art system together.
The vision of Brian was pioneristic because he anticipated we have to distinguish
between a production of art distributed to the market and the production of art not
produced to be exhibited.
Leo Castelli Gallery was one of the first examples of the white cube ideology
Today, there are still galleries that follow this ideology like “The White Cube Gallery” in
London. It has the same DNA with the white space that Brian is explaining. It is a familiar
example for how a gallery is conceived in these times.
White Cube: white, clean, artificial, unshaded. Describing the perfect container for art.
Brian compares the aesthetic and its message to with some gestures made by artist who
were against this ideology, of this kind of way to exhibit their own art. He listed the
artists that reacted to the white cube in negative ways.
Brian addressed the limit and impossibility of the white cube to display all kinds of
artworks and also questioned how much the white cube model was reducing the energy
of artistic creativity. Many opposing artists pushed these limits by installing radical
installations in galleries that were completely subverting the rules of the white cube.
Installation made by Lucas Samaras (Room #1 in Green Gallery in New York in 1964): he
relocated his studio into the gallery, he brought everything in his studio by keeping the
same arrangement, the gallery he exhibited in followed the white cube model (a typical
gallery for that time. He subverted both spaces with this. He used his studio as a piece of
art to be sold and used the gallery as a studio by producing an identical of his studio in
the gallery. He was offering the experience and the environment of the studio not just
once piece that was realized in it. The piece wasn’t sold. Brian O’Doherty discussed this
piece because he wanted to bring to the attention of public the fact that in the mid60s
there was a generation of artists whose work weren’t supposed be exhibited in the
white cube context. He also used this as an example to say that some artists were using
the white cube in a radical way, they were subverting the white cube and they were
able to use the gallery for sth different. He used the gallery in a performative way.
Problem concerning the relationship between are and education is how we can
understand the work of Lucas Samaras if we see the work of in a space which isn’t
supposed to exhibit this kind of creativity.
How does contemporary art, which is a flux, a continuous tension towards the
investigation of different languages, always look for a space that fits the certain
creativity?
Important to distinguish the space which we see contemporary art in and the creativity
which realized this kind of product.
Brian used examples from his contemporaries to talk about these questions but also
examples from the past. Jan Vermeer – The art of Painting: the creation of art and the
place of creation. He used this example to say that art is always a combination of public
and private spheres. Like Lucas Samaras translated his own private studio into a public
space like a gallery. With Vermeer’s this work we have a depiction of an interior space,
, we are entering from the pov of a public figure into a private space. Vermeer is
introducing the idea of entering into a private space as the public.
Another example Brian used is Jan Van Eyck – Amolfini Wedding. He is interested in the
image of a mirror behind the couple that was depicted because it represents, in a vague
way, the painter. Again, there is a private space seen by the public. By this he is
underlining the modernity of these pieces in order to support his thesis.
He also speaks a lot about Courbet and lists the Artist’s studio as a subverting work
about representation of private and public.
He gives Jackson Pollock as an example to talk about the relationship between the
typology of his art and the space he produced it. He is an extraordinary example for the
relationship between the invention of a new language of painting and the space in
which this language was invented. He was focused on a specific language and went
beyond the framework of the canvas and he realized that the canvas was to be painted
in the horizontal pov and not vertical by using different references, so the dripping is
related to the formation of the canvas. That’s why we also see that to understand the
meaning of the work we have to position it in a specific kind of way while displaying it.
Piet Mondrian’s works are strongly related to the space they are produced which is his
house and studio. When they are exhibited on a white wall their message and energy
weaken.
Brian developed the white model cube for new kinds of art.
One of the chapters of the book is called “The Gallery as a Gesture” where he explains
that he doesn’t consider the gallery a space that is surrounded by 4 white walls but
considers it as a stage, a space for gestures. This is different kind of sensibility than just
hanging works on walls.
Artists used the white walls, the galleries for making gestures in order to transform
these neutral spaces into a theater, a happening, an event that were hard to be
considered as art for selling. They were examples of artistic researches.
Brian O’Doherty continued- studio and cube
Studio and cube (2008) is a sequel of the white cube which is a big collection of essays
(the white cube)
These two books became classic in contemporary art literature
“Studio and cube” is a singular essay
Most recent research of Brian, addressing the same topic as inside the white cube.
Contains specific examples addressing the notion of studio as the subject and the
meaning of turning a studio into an artistic subject.
Inside the white cube was published in artforum magazine at first
Studio and cube come from 3 essays
When he is app
Contents:
Gustave Courbet continued:
The center part of the artist’s studio is similar to the painting “melancholia”. Linda noclin
draws this analogy in her writings. Courbet was aware of this similarity so it’s on
purpose, he was reintroducing the idea of melancholy but also was subverting it.
Representation of poverty, injustice, negative effect of the social order adds social
weight to the painting
Linda nochlin approached the history of art from a feminist point of view and she is a
pioneer in this area.
Artist’s studio was realized with the support of photography (used many stills and
brought them together for this painting) , an effect of this technique was that the
painting didn’t have a narrative. It is a big sized painting where nthng happens. It is very
still (the representation of the figures). Everything is represented in the form of a
snapshot; figures are suspended in terms of action.
“Real allegory” is an opposition because the term doesn’t make sense.
The fact that the painting has no narration causes it to not make a sense
The birth of photography was really important for Courbet because it had a strong effect
on the way he interpreted the language of painting.
He was the antagonist of commune in paris.
Many of his paintings were exhibited in different salons. Courbet was a rebel and an
outsider, but he was also included in the salon -> a duality in his career.
Courbet was accepted to the salon in a certain extent with certain types of works like
self-portraits. However he wasn’t satisfied with these selections so he decided to build
an entire pavilion.
Pavillon du realisme: in order to have the possibility to show also the artworks rejected
by the salon, his own exhibition site financially supported by the people who supported
his are. He exhibited the artist’s studio in this pavilion along with a manifesto. He
showed the artworks together with the text. Pavilion was unsuccessful in terms of
business. It is another example how ambitious and modern was Courbet because he
took the refusal of salon and turned it into an opportunity to realize his own pavilion. He
didn’t want to accept the decision of the salon and he was convinced that a kind of a
painting required a specific type of place to be exhibited in.
In modern times artists are more and more concerned about the relationship between
their works and the context that their works are displayed in. the way in which their
works are exhibited is as important as the work itself.
Courbet’s pavilion was an open space with white walls used without specific
instructions.
Courbet wrote in manifesto of realism that his intention was not to represent from the
real, but it was to represent the real. The subject of his art is the reality without filter
and therefore this kind of art needed another space to be exhibited because it was
impossible to put these inside the salon.
The pavilion was a neutral space where the refused art of Courbet could be seen by the
large public.
, It is not by chance that his works in the salon weren’t far from the regular subject?
The wave (1869): representation of sea, landscape of the north part of France, it is
important because, painting after he experimented a lot and created many different
languages, one of the clearest examples of how much he anticipated the sensibility of
the modern painting. We see a timeless painting. If we remove the year of the work, you
can’t allocate the century. Turbulent and unstable representation of nature. Ultimate
representation of the political tension of the Courbet, he is a wave that’s pushing the
society in order to crash, changed to be destroyed and be reborn.
He always strived to change the current art scene and its cannons.
Brian O’Doherty – Inside the White Cube
An interesting figure for the contemporary art scene
Art critique, artist, born in 1928, Irish
Inside the white cube was the title of one of his essays, he then collected some essays
and turned them into a book named the same
Followed the development of the artistic research from the second part of 2 nd ww till
now
He was exhibited in different context
More of an art critique than a visual artist
Moved to the US from Dublin
Tv presenter, cartoonist, performer: versatile figure in 60-70s
An abstract artist, his art is conceptual
He is interested in the placement of the artwork into the space, installations,
environmental painting
The work is related to the place it is realized and exhibited
The relationship painting and space / the relationship between his personality and work:
he used to have many alter egos one was Patrick Ireland and he signed his works under
this name -> he started using it 1972 to protest the murder of 14 unarmed protestors in
Dublin (bloody Sunday), he performed under different names
He used to discuss the role of the artist in society, establishing a discourse about identity
and artist production in relation to the society
Open to different kinds of artistic expression
Oriented towards the concept of the role of the artist and society
Interested in understanding the mechanism between the art and the art system
Problem of identity, relationship between the painting and the space: talks about these
topics in his books “İnside the White Cube” and “Studio and cube”
White cube is the space we are supposed to see art in, it is anything but a neutral space.
No space is not neutral, even the white cube.
In his writing he revealed aspects of the artistic production from an insider pov.
Inside the white cube became a classic in contemporary art literature, considered a
fundamental bibliography.
He asked himself some basic questions: if there is a relationship between the artwork
and the space, what can we learn from this relationship? / What happens when an
, artwork is produced in a studio but exhibited in some other context? Does this alter
anything or not?
Between 60s and 70s, some cities like Paris and New York were bringing all players of
the art system together.
The vision of Brian was pioneristic because he anticipated we have to distinguish
between a production of art distributed to the market and the production of art not
produced to be exhibited.
Leo Castelli Gallery was one of the first examples of the white cube ideology
Today, there are still galleries that follow this ideology like “The White Cube Gallery” in
London. It has the same DNA with the white space that Brian is explaining. It is a familiar
example for how a gallery is conceived in these times.
White Cube: white, clean, artificial, unshaded. Describing the perfect container for art.
Brian compares the aesthetic and its message to with some gestures made by artist who
were against this ideology, of this kind of way to exhibit their own art. He listed the
artists that reacted to the white cube in negative ways.
Brian addressed the limit and impossibility of the white cube to display all kinds of
artworks and also questioned how much the white cube model was reducing the energy
of artistic creativity. Many opposing artists pushed these limits by installing radical
installations in galleries that were completely subverting the rules of the white cube.
Installation made by Lucas Samaras (Room #1 in Green Gallery in New York in 1964): he
relocated his studio into the gallery, he brought everything in his studio by keeping the
same arrangement, the gallery he exhibited in followed the white cube model (a typical
gallery for that time. He subverted both spaces with this. He used his studio as a piece of
art to be sold and used the gallery as a studio by producing an identical of his studio in
the gallery. He was offering the experience and the environment of the studio not just
once piece that was realized in it. The piece wasn’t sold. Brian O’Doherty discussed this
piece because he wanted to bring to the attention of public the fact that in the mid60s
there was a generation of artists whose work weren’t supposed be exhibited in the
white cube context. He also used this as an example to say that some artists were using
the white cube in a radical way, they were subverting the white cube and they were
able to use the gallery for sth different. He used the gallery in a performative way.
Problem concerning the relationship between are and education is how we can
understand the work of Lucas Samaras if we see the work of in a space which isn’t
supposed to exhibit this kind of creativity.
How does contemporary art, which is a flux, a continuous tension towards the
investigation of different languages, always look for a space that fits the certain
creativity?
Important to distinguish the space which we see contemporary art in and the creativity
which realized this kind of product.
Brian used examples from his contemporaries to talk about these questions but also
examples from the past. Jan Vermeer – The art of Painting: the creation of art and the
place of creation. He used this example to say that art is always a combination of public
and private spheres. Like Lucas Samaras translated his own private studio into a public
space like a gallery. With Vermeer’s this work we have a depiction of an interior space,
, we are entering from the pov of a public figure into a private space. Vermeer is
introducing the idea of entering into a private space as the public.
Another example Brian used is Jan Van Eyck – Amolfini Wedding. He is interested in the
image of a mirror behind the couple that was depicted because it represents, in a vague
way, the painter. Again, there is a private space seen by the public. By this he is
underlining the modernity of these pieces in order to support his thesis.
He also speaks a lot about Courbet and lists the Artist’s studio as a subverting work
about representation of private and public.
He gives Jackson Pollock as an example to talk about the relationship between the
typology of his art and the space he produced it. He is an extraordinary example for the
relationship between the invention of a new language of painting and the space in
which this language was invented. He was focused on a specific language and went
beyond the framework of the canvas and he realized that the canvas was to be painted
in the horizontal pov and not vertical by using different references, so the dripping is
related to the formation of the canvas. That’s why we also see that to understand the
meaning of the work we have to position it in a specific kind of way while displaying it.
Piet Mondrian’s works are strongly related to the space they are produced which is his
house and studio. When they are exhibited on a white wall their message and energy
weaken.
Brian developed the white model cube for new kinds of art.
One of the chapters of the book is called “The Gallery as a Gesture” where he explains
that he doesn’t consider the gallery a space that is surrounded by 4 white walls but
considers it as a stage, a space for gestures. This is different kind of sensibility than just
hanging works on walls.
Artists used the white walls, the galleries for making gestures in order to transform
these neutral spaces into a theater, a happening, an event that were hard to be
considered as art for selling. They were examples of artistic researches.
Brian O’Doherty continued- studio and cube
Studio and cube (2008) is a sequel of the white cube which is a big collection of essays
(the white cube)
These two books became classic in contemporary art literature
“Studio and cube” is a singular essay
Most recent research of Brian, addressing the same topic as inside the white cube.
Contains specific examples addressing the notion of studio as the subject and the
meaning of turning a studio into an artistic subject.
Inside the white cube was published in artforum magazine at first
Studio and cube come from 3 essays
When he is app
Contents:
