Reflection – On the qualities that a painting or a drawing can bring to an image that cannot be achieved by a photograph.
[The paintings referred to in this article can all be found and viewed on the internet.]
A question that is asked from time to time is what can a painting bring to an image that cannot conveyed by a photograph? Accepting that there can be very beautiful scenes created by skilled photographers, there is nonetheless a je ne sais quoit that the skilled painter introduces and it is that extra something that I will be examining in this week’s reflection.
In examining this subject we are entering onto the field of aesthetics – a term originally introduced by Longinus in the third century and re-introduced by Baumgarten. During the nineteenth century there was a burgeoning interest in a philosophy which could be said to have begun with the publication by Baumgarten of Meditationes philosophicae de nonullis ad poema pertinentibus in 1735.[i] This work re-introduced the concept of aesthetics in philosophy, a subject which was further developed by Kant, whose theories were then interpreted and expanded by other philosophers including Schiller, Schelling, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) and Hegel.[ii] The essence of this philosophy, which was fashionable at the time, is that:
The work of art … represents not the empirical object but its idea… every object is presented as the epitome of its existence, a state where it has reached its telos. Art captures the perfect moment and lifts the object out of the flow of time, allowing it to become eternal in its preservation through art.[iii]
The important word here is idea which is related to German Idealism and can be regarded as
a spiritual concept of reality and is expressed in the work of art. Telos is related to theology where teleology may be regarded as the study of divine design. This then, is the origin in the eighteenth century of the subject of aesthetics. The subject went through hands of many philosophers some of whom I have mentioned above until we come to the twentieth century and the art historian Michael Podro whose theory is of particular interest when it comes to art endeavouring to represent the numinous or, if you prefer it, the divine. As regular readers of this column will know my particular interest is in the way landscape artists have endeavoured to depict that which lies ‘beyond the veil’ and Podro provides the theory or explanation, if you would rather think of it, so succinctly.
As highlighted in The Manifold in Perception (1972), Podro suggests there are three basic criteria when examining the relationship between reality and art from which can be derived a concept of the usefulness or value of art.[iv] These criteria may be expressed and interpreted as follows:
- Art reveals through the skill of the artist some aspect of a subject that would not be immediately apparent.
- The artist’s depiction of an object makes a reference to the perceptual process of the viewer which enables an understanding to be achieved through, for example, the use of analogy.
- The artist engages with the state of mind of the viewer to achieve an elevated or heightened emotional response to the work of art which may suggest a transcendence that lies behind the objects depicted.
The first of these criteria suggests something beyond copying or even mimesis – a word first used by Plato and, subsequently, by Aristotle to suggest representation or imitation.[v] The thought behind this first criterion, however, is that the artist reveals something which would not be immediately apparent on first looking at the subject itself; the artist has to view the subject with such intensity that it adduces an inner subtlety which can then be conveyed to the viewer. Unless the artist achieves this, then the work could only be regarded, as Hegel suggests, as a mere copy where the main judgemental criterion becomes an assessment of the accuracy of the copy.[vi]
The second of these will most often convey a meaning by analogy. A good example of this might be Raphael’s School of Athens (1509). In this painting concerning knowledge, there is a synthesis of the divine and the worldly with amongst others a portrayal of Aristotle and Plato located centrally under the main archway one (Plato) pointing to the sky (the divine) and the other (Aristotle) to the world around; and in the centre foreground is located one of the best artists of the age Michelangelo writing on, but not carving, a block of marble. While the painting is entirely imaginary, the meaning which it is intended to convey is that of the unity of divine knowledge and worldly knowledge – uniting the spiritual and earthly. This was, of course, before Descartes argued for the separation of the two. Another example of this category and one which is more relevant to the period of this thesis is Palmer’s portrayal of the Repose on the Flight to Egypt (c1824-8) where trees and shrubs are representative of
Detail from : Raphael School of Athens. (1509-1511)
the people concerned. (This painting was described in detail in an earlier reflection.) A particular characteristic of these drawings or paintings is that a response is required from the viewer, where individuals will each have their own reaction or interpretation leading to an understanding personal to that individual. The ideal response will be exegesis (the objective taking meaning out of the text or image) but could also be eisegesis (the subjective putting meaning into a text or image).[vii]
The third criterion leads from the second inasmuch as the work of art is intended to evoke an emotional response from the viewer or as Podro expresses it ‘through our absorption with a work of art, we achieve an emotional equilibrium, a purging or poise or inward harmony, which we do not normally possess.’[viii] This response may be initiated by consideration of a work depicting the sublime, for example, one of John Martin’s (1789-1854) apocalyptic designs or of the spiritual as in Palmer’s The Lonely Tower (1879).
Podro’s theory of the relationship between reality and art can be compared with Bergmann’s approach to the concept of art as the language of religion, which is based on perception, creation and imitation.[ix] This approach is founded on that of the German Protestant theologian, Professor Rainer Volp who in turn based his ideas on the theologian Schleiermacher, who suggested that as language related to knowledge, so art relates to religion.[x] His approach is more restricted than that of Podro inasmuch as Podro’s theory is not limited in a way that almost suggests that the main purpose of art is to interpret religion. Podro has the advantage that it is more all-embracing, substituting the word reality for religion and furthermore is set out in terms that are more practical and readily appreciated by both the artist and theologian. Finally, I would argue that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive, especially if one substitutes ‘aid to the interpretation of religion’ for the ‘language of religion’.
The boundaries between the three categories of Podro, outlined above, are often blurred or overlapped but in the context of the examination of transcendence in art it is the second and third of these three types which are of particular concern and which I use in interpreting works of art that endeavour to represent the numinous. These qualities I would argue would not be found in a photograph which ,however brilliant the photographer, can only reproduce the scene before the lens.
Dr David Greenwood d.greenwood@uwtsd.ac.uk August 2021
[i] ‘Philosophical meditations on some requirements of the poem’ mentioned in Hammermeister, Kai The German Aesthetic Tradition – Cambridge, Cambridge University Press page 4. Baumgarten also wrote Aesthetica, published in 1750.
[ii] The word aesthetics is derived from Greek usage of the word which meant perception and occurs in Plato (Republic) and Aristotle (Poetics). Although used also by Plotinus, Augustine and Aquinas it was Baumgarten who established the philosophy of aesthetics concerned with ‘science of the conditions of sensuous perception’ or the ‘philosophy of taste or of the perception of the beautiful’. For a full discussion of the development of the word see the essay in Honderich, T. (ed) Oxford Companion to Philosophy Oxford Oxford University Press 1995 (second ed.) pp. 9a to16a and the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles C.T.Onions (ed.) Oxford University Press 1983, from which these two definitions have been taken.
[iii] Hammermeister, K. The German Aesthetic Tradition Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2002, p. 79.
[iv] Podro, M. The Manifold in Perception – Theories of Art from Kant to Hildebrand Oxford Clarendon Press 1972, pp. 1-6.
[v] Plato used the term mimesis in a rather derogatory way suggesting that if the thing or person being imitated were bad then that characteristic could influence the actor or artist. ‘To produce such representations, Plato says, one does not need knowledge of the thing being represented, but only how it appears’ (Honderich, T. Oxford Companion to Philosophy Oxford, OUP 1995 p. 603a) Later definitions suggest that mimesis means to convey the essence or unity of nature.
[vi] Hegel, G.W.F. Introductory Lectures on Aesthetics (translated by Bosanquet, edited by Wood) London Penguin 2004 p.49.
[vii] For a detailed discussion of the interpretation of text and image see Harvey, J. The Bible as Visual Culture Sheffield Sheffield Phoenix Press 2013. pp.11-13.
[viii] Podro M. p.5.
[ix] Bergmann, S. In the Beginning is the Icon. London Equinox Publishing. p.57.
[x] Ibid. p.57.
Brislington Community News 