img src=http://rjr10036.typepad.com/proceed_at_your_own_risk/images/mondrian.jpg alt=”” align=”middle” />
An admirer of my photography recently praised my clever ability to capture the spirit of the great Dutch painter Piet Mondrian in my work. I was quite taken aback by this and without diminishing the genius of Mondrian, I felt obliged to explain to my admirer that he was putting the proverbial cart before the horse. The only relationship I can claim to Mondrian is that our work benefits from the same model, the same muse.
In one sense, Mondrian did not create Broadway Boogie Woogie, rather the boogie woogie of Broadway inspired Mondrian. Mondrian recorded and interpreted with his brush what I record and interpret with my camera: a unique energy fueled by verticals, horizontals and colors that is the visual signature of Manhattan and it’s relentless boogie woogie.
As a young man off on his first world adventures I was stunned by the revelation that many of the great artists I admired did not invent their mysterious landscapes, colors and visual signatures of China, Japan, Tuscany and Provence. Rather they were brilliantly capturing the unique moods, colors, light and shapes that nature had already chosen to create. I remember gazing over the hills of Tuscany for the first time and thinking, “Oh! So that’s where Leonardo got that.” And I remember the day I realized the Van Gogh was “photographing” (through his unusual lens) the unique palette and landscapes of Provence.
I would never question the genius of these and many other great masters, but I often wonder if art critics and museum and gallery visitors give enough credit to the subject and the powerful role it plays in the creation of the art?
Art not only tells us what the artist sees, it often tells us much about what the subject itself shows to the artist.
I can only speak for myself, but I often walk away from something I’ve just photographed in Manhattan with a sense of gratitude. How much of an artist’s talent is in his ability to create vs his ability to record; and record not just the obvious visuals but also the mood and the energy of the subject? Is great art simply a great record and is mediocre or failed art produced when the artist fails to understand and accurately represent what the subject is revealing?
Richard,
In Rotterdam there is a museum with some lovely paintings by Mondrian made before he got into his brand-name style. I prefer you photos to his ridiculous paintings by a huge margin. Mondrian’s famous pictures represent the triumph of the “Art” god over humanity. They are anti-humanistic, like so much of the art that followed.
What I loved about Richard Estes’ painting were the many shades of gray that he portrayed in his cityscapes – different colors of concrete. Back in my days of admiring R. Estes’ work, I lived in Cold Spring Harbor on the lush North Shore of Long Island. Driving towards Manhattan through Queens, I searched and reveled in the multitude of grays in its skyline.
Your photographs, like R. Estes’ paintings, show reflections from different media. But there also is a difference.
Your photographs are powerful because they show Manhattan in its bold colors.
Is great art simply a great record and is mediocre or failed art produced when the artist fails to understand and accurately represent what the subject is revealing?
Yes, yes. But you should replace the word “record” with “representation.”
It gets more complicated when you paint from your imagination, but you are still right. And don’t think that abstract art is not representational at its core, because it is.
Richard, I agree that subject is crucial, but I don’t believe (and I don’t think you do either — correct me if I’m wrong) that there is a unique something that “the subject is revealing.” Rather, that depends also on the grammatically implied someone to whom the subject “is revealing.” A dozen photographers and a dozen painters could stand at the same spot and make different images that are all great.
I love your pictures and I think they’re well chosen to show responses to the same aspect of your fabulous subject as Mondrian’s painting. Whom I adore by the way, but I don’t have time for even my first argument with Karl now. Something to return to later.
Richard — what a great title. And wonderful photos, too. It’s grand to see someone celebrate their world.
I must say that I agree with Steve about multiple viewpoints having the possibility of being equally good.
And are you photographers reading today’s NY Times magazine about Wall, the photographer who does set-ups for his images, produces them in huge form (6 x 8 feet, for example) with a light table behind? What do you think? I remember, was it D.? who did the brushy bushes photographs and was making them larger than the normal size. Would you like to go even bigger? How big do you produce yours, Richard?
I’m not a fan of big, grand and sweeping. I very much enjoy the intimacy of details. While I admire the craftsmanship of the Sistene chapel ceiling, I find it overwhelning and somewhat unpleasent–kind of like when Americans shout at foreigner imagining that very loud English will be more easily understood by the less fortunate. I would likely never produce a photo larger than 2 or 3 feet in width or height.
I quote from “the new art the new life, the colected writings” a 1942 notition from Mondrian :
“painting has no direct value when it is
not in direct relationship with the actual
surrounding reality.
For men of the city
the whole city life must reflect in it.
Methaphysic painting has not this direct
relationship. Being too far off leads to
misinterpretation and misunderstanding”.
You seem to have at least one
“great master” on your side here.
Good day to you,
Wonderful essay. I quoted a bit from it in my current WordPress blog. I’m quite new to blogging and don’t quite understand trackbacks and all that yet, so I just wanted to leave a note of appreciation for your piece and let you know that I have linked to you.
Best regards.