I like the topic of error with respect to art. Looking at a Rembrandt portrait might be a decent starting point. Typically, a mature R portrait would shows seated figure in 3/4 view or more frontal, with clasped hands or at least one hand, and more or less well defined clothing, all in a murky darkish enveloping space. The head and facial features are quite clear, or well described with paint, but the hand/s are often very vague or sketchily painted. One could say the hands display error because they are not as well described as the main subject, the face. If the rule for accuracy is the similarity of description for the whole figure, then, yes, the hands are in error (again the main comparison is the face). But the lack of description of the hands suggests the moment of observation, a liveliness, that is psychologically or affectively (with an a, not e) transferred to the face. Thus even though the face is painted in a 'frozen moment', the hands are, well, thawed and seemingly mobile. This notion of being alive in the moment is compelling. Imaginatively, the alive sitter moves his hands and disturbs the paint. The 'error' turns out to be an accurate way to suggest that the painted image not only imitates the features of the sitter but his being alive (but as-if paint) too. This is a case where error and accuracy depend on recognizing the most important feature of the subject. For R that was not clear and full description but the recognition that the sitter was a living person in real time.
Later, in the Impressionist era, R became a new hero because of that lively moment instead of the frozen moment. The impressionists used the term Slice of Life to suggest the fleeting, un-composed moment but they paid careful attention to the blur of life in motion, as R did. The same could be said of Velazquez' rising popularity during the late 19C. This is an enormous problem in contemporary art, not just painting. The late Modern era seems to be favoring the frozen moment once again, despite the obvious exceptions of video and cinema, performance, and some installation art which add to the eclectic nature of our time. Much painting and conceptual art, especially sculpture, depends on the iconic frozen image because it is about a clear idea being evoked in solitude (or motionless in the museum contemplating an artwork) not life being experienced. Today's art is dominated by images of things standing still, equally described in all parts according to some discernible rule. Even the popularity of so-called provisional art (slacker art) suggests this by seemingly wiggling under its ties to the frozen moment. Freedom in art is freedom from art. WC ----- Original Message ---- From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, November 11, 2012 9:57:55 AM Subject: Error and quality I've been preoccupied lately by two ideas that I believe are related: Error Quality First, specifically, why is there error? Not, how does an error occur? Nor am I interested in the teleological answere that error produces diversity, which is a good thing (and which strikes me as a circular argument). Why is there error? Why is there no perfect duplication or action? Second, why is it that some people cannot discern or distinguish the limits of lesser quality? Why do some people accept an artful production (music, dance, painting, etc.) as suitable and highly accomplished when it isn't? I am not picking a quarrel with gauche taste and making a case for more art education. I am interested in the process or mechanism or explanation of why it is that some people cannot distinguish between the mediocre and the high quality. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
