Theory
1 – Representation
Representation is the theory that something can only be considered a
piece of art if It resembles something that the viewer can identify with. This
is called Representationalism. In Michelangelo’s – The Creation Of Adam, we can
clearly see that there is a man (Adam) and a godly figure. A representation
style artwork may not convey as much emotion however, compared to an abstract
or expressive piece but this is subjective to the piece.
I find that representationalism is a very close-minded art theory that
does not accept other pieces of art if it does not conform to the rules of what
the theory says art is.
The counter argument to this theory can be art such as an abstract
piece. How is a piece by artists such as Pablo Picasso any less Art? Picasso’s
Weeping Woman can be described more as an expressive piece of art as it conveys
emotion more than a representative piece.
Theory 2 – Expressionism
Expressionism is the theory that something is only a work of art if it
expresses emotion in some way. It is only art if it transmits to the viewer the
same emotion that the original artist felt when they created the expressive piece,
like a shared state of being.
A counter argument can be, is then a photograph not a piece of art?
Photographs can certainly be expressive but at what stage does a photograph
become less of a representation of something, to an expressive piece of art?
The expressive theory is, much like the representation theory, flawed as it
excludes a wide variety of art.
Theory 3: - Formalism
The theory of formalism states that a piece of art can only
be classified as art if it adheres to certain stipulations. The painting for
example must be focused on the way it was painted, not what the painting is
representing. A formalist painting does not have to represent any particular object
or emotion; it’s all about the painting in itself.
Formalism is regarded as the transition from older
representative and expressional art to modern art.
The downside of formalism, this theory disregards everything
that came before it. For example, there are scores of religious paintings that
do not care for the way they were created, they were created for a purpose, to
glorify that particular religion.
Theory 4: The Institutional Theory of Art
The
institutional theory of art states that a piece can only be described as a work
of art if it can be displayed to the public to display the ‘fruit of human
labour’ in a social context. This means that according to the institutional
theory, a piece of art can be a lifelong painting masterpiece that is nominated
for display in an art gallery, but also could include other works such as
displaying random everyday objects and classifying them as modern art.
In order
to qualify as a piece of art, either of these examples must be on display and
be accessible to the public and declared as a piece of art by an art
practitioner, such as a curator or even someone of considerable status as an
art critic.
The
nature of art under this theory can be either mental or material in the eyes of
the beholder which is good as the theory can encompass a wide range of artistic
styles, however much of this could be missed if someone does not designate it
as art. This artistic theory does not restrict art to being only
representational or expressive for example, as other theories of art can and
was designed to try to encompass all art in general.
On the
flipside, a counter argument to this theory is that again, the institutional
theory of art does not encompass all forms of potential art pieces. Because art
must be classified as art by an authority on art before it can be valued and called
artwork, there will be many pieces that are left out. If I were to draw a
fantastic picture that displays many fine artistic aesthetics and qualities, is
not art until someone eventually says it is? If I do not display my drawing to
the public and keep it to myself, is it not art? According to the institutional
theory of art, the answer seems to be no. Unless my work is displayed and
becomes part of the social circle, it is not art.
Philosophical Aesthetics Report
The piece of work that I
have chosen to speak about within this report is called Neighbours by Norman McLaren (1952). In this report, I will compare
the contrasting Institutional and Post-Modern theories of art in relation to
the artefact.
Norman McLaren was a
Scottish born filmmaker and animator who moved across to America then to Canada
in 1939, just as the Second World War was starting in Europe. He took very
little with him but eventually managed to get noticed then make a name for
himself.
Dobson (2006, p.99) states “He had with him some letters of
introduction, a portfolio of drawings, 3,000 feet of film and $120”.
Eventually, after numerous
attempts to make a name for himself in the US, he was invited to move to Canada
to start a career with The NFB (National film board of Canada) in 1941. McLaren
spent a good amount of time with the NFB creating morale boosting films during
the war which would help boost people’s spirits and also raise some money for
the Canadian war effort through the NFB’s programme for the war savings
committee. After the war, McLaren was permitted to begin working on films of
his own by the NFB.
By 1952, McLaren had
finished creating his short pixilation film, Neighbours.
The nature of McLaren’s Neighbours is a primarily mental
experience as the moral of the story is received by looking past what is
physically happening on screen and looking to what it represents.
“Neighbours, which turned out to be one of McLaren’s most acclaimed
films and the NFB’s most successful film ever in terms of numbers of bookings.
It is also a film that gave most satisfaction to McLaren” (Dobson, 2006, p.225).
According to the
Institutional Theory of Art, Neighbours
can be considered a work of art.
“An artefact becomes a work of art if relevant
critics regard it as being a candidate for this status. Art is what the art
world decides it is.” (Graham, 2005, p. 228)
To qualify to be considered
a work of art as per the institutional theory, the film had to be declared such
by an authority on the subject such as the NFB. The NFB did.
Ohayon (2011, p.1) states “The NFB deemed Neighbours a natural fit for
the non-theatrical market, especially art house theatres”.
Though the NFB did release
McLaren’s Neighbours into the public
domain, it did not have a very good reception in the beginning, especially in
Canada itself. Although declared as art by the NFB, they did not have high
hopes that the film would do very well. The film was eventually picked up by
other distributors and eventually made its way onto the screens of New York in
the United States. It was here in New York that Neighbours won an Oscar for Best Documentary, Short Subject. This
goes to show that even though the NFB did not rate the film very highly, it
still did very well in other countries such as France and the UK. This begs the
question, is the Institutional theory of art always correct because they could
very easily have not given the go ahead for it to be distributed?
Neighbours, when
it was released shortly after WW2, could be considered very Post-Modern for its
time. After the war, the world did not return to a state of complete peace,
there were still tensions brewing, particularly between the Western world and
the Eastern Communist states. McLaren was a pacifist by nature and as I stated
earlier had moved across the Atlantic to avoid the war.
McLaren is cited by Dobson (2006,
p.225-226) “Because of my Spanish
experience with its bombings, people mangled, I could not stand up to the
strain of war around me”
The film was marketed in
many languages in the hopes of as McLaren himself put it, “convincing them of the futility of war.” (Dobson, 2006, p.225)
Post-Modernism can mean to
push the current boundaries of what has been produced at that time. Norman McLaren
certainly did that with Neighbours in
1952.
“While
the modernist (at least on some uses of the term) strives to find ‘the’ right
proportions and harmonies, the Post-Modernist
abandons any such attempt as futile, and thus opens up a world liberated from
conventional and culturally relative constraints.” (Graham 2005,
p.242)
One scene in which the warring
neighbours brutally attack each other’s wives and babies was cut from the film
for 12 years before McLaren decided to add the scene back in. The scene is not
intended to be simply a random act of violence, but rather a metaphor. Simply
put, not all casualties of war are soldiers; quite often pain and death affect
innocent civilians and family members. McLaren included the violent scene later
because of growing public complaints that it was excluded. Also, America was
entering into war with Vietnam at the time, so it seemed appropriate to restore
the film for the full effect to point out ‘the futility of war’.
The film is also to be
considered a good example of Post-Modernism due to the nature of the
combatants. The two men in the film are neighbours who are fighting over a
small triviality. A flower and which side of the fence is it on. This can be
compared to the feud between America and Russia at the time in the lead up to
the cold war, and even in more contemporary times, the war on terror and
arguments over world resources such as oil and nuclear energy.
The Post-Modern theory asks
us to question reality, and ask the questions that are difficult to answer. In
the example posed by McLaren’s Neighbours,
war will get us nothing but pain, “So - love thy Neighbour” This statement was
displayed in the final seconds of the film in multiple languages. It’s a
message for everyone. This simple piece of text, coupled with the theme of the
film gives the film tremendous value as an anti-war statement that makes you
think about the reason, if any, to go to war with each other over such
trivialities.
The true value in Neighbours is not in what the film looks
like but rather what the film puts across. The films significant form in the
case of Post-Modernism comes from the mental images and ideas we are given
through the film.
This message was difficult
to get across though. As I have stated, the film was not very well received in
its native Canada. This can be considered postmodernisms downfall because it
does not appeal to everyone. A lot of people who watched the film did not
understand the nature of the film and its underlying connotations and simply
saw two men beating each other up over a flower. The distributors refused to
play the film until it was cut and it was the censored version that won the
academy award.
As Dobson (2006, p.236)
states, “Several aspects of the
censorship are notable. The removal of these most violent and shocking scenes
weakens the films pacifist statement. Further, as the scenes depict the fate of
innocents, an important allegorical extension of the moral of the film was
deleted”
In conclusion, the Institutional
Theory of art and the Post-Modernism Theory can both be applied to Norman
McLaren’s Neighbours but I think that
the strongest theory would have to be Post-Modernism. Even though the NFB did
rate Neighbours as a work of art by distributing the film, the film in itself
was not received as such by all viewers at the time which to some people could
rule out the film as an Institutional piece of art. This does not hold up well
for the Institutional Theory.
There can be little argument
that the film is Post-Modern however, as McLaren took the idea of the ‘modern’
American model family and flipped it on its head. The Post-Modernism theory
really holds its own when used in conjunction with McLaren’s Neighbours. McLaren’s point, that we
should not be fighting each other over small things like borders and resources,
I think is shown in a very clever way that makes you think about the subject
whilst being entertaining at the same time, however this approach will not
appeal to everyone, such is Post-Modernism.
References:
Cartagena, R., (2003), Neighbours, [ONLINE]. www.people.wcsu.edu Available at: http://people.wcsu.edu/mccarneyh/fva/m/neighbors.html
Accessed 17/12/2013
Carroll,
N., (1996) Post-Theory, An Outline for
Institutional Theory of Film, Published in Madison by University of Wisconsin Press (p. 375-391)
Dobson, T., (2006) The Film Work of Norman McLaren, Published
in Eastley UK: John Libbey Publishing.
Graham, G., (2005), Philosophy of the Arts: 3rd Ed.,
Chapter 12: Theories of Art, Published by Routledge, Oxon, (P, 228-230, 238-242)
Hanfling, O., (1992), Philosophical Aesthetics: An introduction. Published:
Milton Keynes, Open University. (p. 144-150)
Neighbours, (1952), [FILM].
Directed by McLaren, N. Ottowa, Canada: NFB Available At: http://www.nfb.ca/film/neighboursvoisins/
[Accessed 10/12/2013]
Ohanon, A., (2011), Neighbours: The NFB’s Second Oscar Winner.
[ONLINE]. www.blog.nfb.ca. Available At: http://blog.nfb.ca/blog/2011/02/27/neighbours-the-nfbs-second-oscar-winner/
[Accessed 10/12/2013
No comments:
Post a Comment