An example of this are the children's books by El Lissitzky, they show a story of a scientific romance, set in a 4th dimension, where vibrant red geometric shapes, in relation to the negative space around them, represent the protagonists...
Wow, well they just look riveting, what a bed-time story. Yeah, I know what'll be great for kids, a book where they have to work out what the hell's going on via the correlation of negative space to blocks of colour... I mean, what kid doesn't like maths and conceptual theory?!
Well me for one, for all its intents and purposes, you can give me a 'beano' over this any day of the week.
The Constructivists intent was to push society out of the end of the revolution into a new sense of civilisation, where materialism would eventually lead to spiritual freedom. I think it's arguable that from the way our highly materialistic, western society operates, it's clear materialism only leads to a want of more things. An eternal feeling of dissatisfaction or a sense something is always missing from our lives, that until we have it, we will never truly be happy. Materialism has done more damage to our society and planet than any other 'movement' that was ever coined 'for the people'.
Though its a logical train of thought for these people at the time. Coming out of a cold harsh revolution, the prospect of better day's and a brighter future on the horizon. It makes sense they'd associate the things they've never had, or lived without for so long, would bring them happiness and subsequently enlightenment.
An example of Kaezimier Malevich's work here is this austere painting form 1915.
According to Adam Cooke (2012) this was "...one of the most radical paintings of it's day, yet it wasn't impersonal; the trace of the artist's hand is visible in the paint strokes and subtle variations of white."
He goes on to state "Suprematism represented a leap into a totally non-representational, non-painterly dynamic. Basic geometric shapes, either isolated or together, were being energised, propelled to an optimistic ideal, soaring from lower left to upper right, the vector alone suggesting time."
Well call me dense but I don't see any of that. Sure I get that that's one meaning you could place to it, you can see the logic in the interpretation. But frankly it's the most boring thing I've ever had to look at for longer than five minutes, hovering above me as I sit here typing, it looks like someones recently moved a small cabinet or perhaps a fine oak lamp stand, that's been sat on their cream rug for the past few years, showing what colour the carpet used to be. Aside from that, I see little else and wouldn't in a million years have drawn the same or even a similar conclusion as Adam did.
I suppose knowing the history of the piece provides context and a reasonable area of time and information, for you to drawn your own conclusion out of it. But does it make it any more entertaining to look at? You tell me.
I guess I'm just a product of my generation, growing up with saturday morning cartoons, action figures, and lego, then later on in life, glossy CGI movies and seamless video games and super-hero comic books. All these things explain themselves, there's no need for interpretation, that's not true as a whole of course, some films and comics are ladened with layers of metaphors and messages, but the difference between them and this, is that they're entertaining...
Overall the Constructivists/Supremacists propaganda and education-encoraging posters were lost on the masses. What with the majority of 1920's Russia being illiterate, the overly conceptual themes flew over the heads of most. And hey, I can read and write fine and I still don't get them really, so who's to say that literacy would have changed anything anyway...
I'm sure all artists can relate to the want to achieve something above and beyond the necessary, I tend to try and communicate my idea's by putting a lot of (sometimes unnecessary) detail into my work. But when an artists strives for this extra detail in theory and metaphors only. Relying solely on the conceptual ability of the viewer to deconstruct these meanings and messages. There's bound to be a communication problem somewhere along the line, and that's bound to cut out half your audience.
I've never been one for entirely abstract art. It's my belief art should be immediately captivating and entertaining. If after this fact the artists wishes to place hidden meaning and messages underneath something that can still be enjoyed without deciphering this hidden code, then I'm all for it. But in my opinion conceptual theorising should be an extra, a hidden easter egg under something that's already given you a source of enjoyment for what it is. For the skill that was involved in creating it.
But as I've mentioned I'm of the generation where, as a rule of thumb, there's about and 8 second window to grab our attention before we change the channel, click the next link, of fast forward the next chapter...
Ooh look, a pop up on how the get ripped in three minutes!!!
I'm gonna check that out...
*click*
No comments:
Post a Comment