Sunday, October 19, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Landscape Response
Among his overlapping views on landscape, W.J.T. Mitchell discusses in length the relationship between imperialism and landscape. He believes, through his research, that landscape is widely accepted as the imposed impression of what humans think that nature is. He is wary of this definition of landscape because of how widely it has been accepted and unchallenged. Since the western idea of landscape became evidenced, around the same time as imperialism and the age of exploration, it has been used as an attempt to understand the new territories in a way that the western masses could navigate. This point he questions by explaining that the Dutch began to paint landscapes in an attempt to glorify their home; there was no want to expand the territory of the Netherlands by these nationalistic painters.
By saying that "landscape is best understood as a medium of cultural expression, not a genre of painting or fine art", Mitchell is saying that the way a landscape is or is portrayed becomes a way for the viewer to see from the eyes of the artist; the viewer sees the landscape through the filters that this specific person places on the world, or nature specifically. To say that landscape is not a genre of painting or fine art is to say that is has no meaning beyond the aesthetic or visible layers. It is to say that the landscape as painting is more of a visual record of a space, that may or may not vary from reality, than something to be put on display. Should the painting be more what was wished to be seen than what was there, it becomes a different kind of record, but a record nonetheless- it is about the mindset of the people in the space, not just the space itself.
The "dark side of landscape" comes from the second kind of record referenced above. It changes the landscape to better fit the composition, or more drastically, to portray a new land as seen by invaders/imperialists. By forcing the new land into an old "frame" (as Mitchell said), the painting or other representation is assuming a kind of ownership over the land. Though the land cannot physically be owned by making a painting, representing something instantly gives the artist power over the object and can manipulate in any way he or she wishes.
By saying that "landscape is best understood as a medium of cultural expression, not a genre of painting or fine art", Mitchell is saying that the way a landscape is or is portrayed becomes a way for the viewer to see from the eyes of the artist; the viewer sees the landscape through the filters that this specific person places on the world, or nature specifically. To say that landscape is not a genre of painting or fine art is to say that is has no meaning beyond the aesthetic or visible layers. It is to say that the landscape as painting is more of a visual record of a space, that may or may not vary from reality, than something to be put on display. Should the painting be more what was wished to be seen than what was there, it becomes a different kind of record, but a record nonetheless- it is about the mindset of the people in the space, not just the space itself.
The "dark side of landscape" comes from the second kind of record referenced above. It changes the landscape to better fit the composition, or more drastically, to portray a new land as seen by invaders/imperialists. By forcing the new land into an old "frame" (as Mitchell said), the painting or other representation is assuming a kind of ownership over the land. Though the land cannot physically be owned by making a painting, representing something instantly gives the artist power over the object and can manipulate in any way he or she wishes.
landscapes reseponse
before answering the questions i found it slightly amusing how Mitchell states in the begining points number 6,7,8 "Landscape is a medium found in all cultures", "Landscape is a particular historical formation associated with European Imperialism", and "These 5 and 6 don't contradict one another".
There is polemic behind the asthetic of landscape itself and to people who may think it's been overdone and has lost its meaning artisticly or even as any form of expression, considering Mitchell quotes Keneth Clark's Landscape into art "we are surrounded by things we have not made and which have life..for centuries they have inspired us with curiosity and awe...Landscape painting marks the stages in our conception of nature. It's rise and development since the middle ages is part of the cycle in which the human spirit attempted once more to create a harmony with its enviroment." which is a bit confusing considering if people continue to become inspired with nature itself and photographs and paintings among other mediums are still creating types of landscapes because new generations continue to be inspired by nature.
There is polemic behind the asthetic of landscape itself and to people who may think it's been overdone and has lost its meaning artisticly or even as any form of expression, considering Mitchell quotes Keneth Clark's Landscape into art "we are surrounded by things we have not made and which have life..for centuries they have inspired us with curiosity and awe...Landscape painting marks the stages in our conception of nature. It's rise and development since the middle ages is part of the cycle in which the human spirit attempted once more to create a harmony with its enviroment." which is a bit confusing considering if people continue to become inspired with nature itself and photographs and paintings among other mediums are still creating types of landscapes because new generations continue to be inspired by nature.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
New Reading round two
Reading and response due October 14
"Imperial Landscape" by W. J. Thomas Mitchell" from Landscape and Power
Please read pages 5-21 of the essay and post responses to the following questions on the blog:
1.W.J.T. Mitchell spends much of the essay talking about some of the problems with widespread art historical assumptions about the genre of landscape art. What are some of these assumptions, and why does he find them questionable?
2.What does Mitchell mean in his claim that “landscape is best understood as a medium of cultural expression, not a genre of painting or fine art”? Please elaborate.
3.What does the genre of landscape have to do with imperialism and what are some of the “dark sides” of landscape?
please bring your reading with you next week and prepare your responses.
"Imperial Landscape" by W. J. Thomas Mitchell" from Landscape and Power
Please read pages 5-21 of the essay and post responses to the following questions on the blog:
1.W.J.T. Mitchell spends much of the essay talking about some of the problems with widespread art historical assumptions about the genre of landscape art. What are some of these assumptions, and why does he find them questionable?
2.What does Mitchell mean in his claim that “landscape is best understood as a medium of cultural expression, not a genre of painting or fine art”? Please elaborate.
3.What does the genre of landscape have to do with imperialism and what are some of the “dark sides” of landscape?
please bring your reading with you next week and prepare your responses.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Barbie & Globalization!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)