the nature of nature
in his work, art and art industries in japan (1878), rutherford alcock singles out the love of nature and partiality towards the ever changing state of things to be characteristic of japanese art: nature being neither uniform nor repetitive, learning from it can result in a rich diversity, and this learning process from nature accounts for those characteristics of japanese art which are lacking in european art.
and clearly, with the rebirth of japonisme, arts and crafts, and art nouveau in our own time, the images still hold strength, beauty and appeal.
(genki raian--ca.1830; decorche- mont--ca.1900; ephraim faience--ca.2006)
Labels: decorchemont, ephraim faience, genki raian
posted by lotusgreen at 5:15 PM
2 Comments:
Lotusgreen, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the phrase, "this learning process from nature accounts for those characteristics of japanese art which are lacking in european art." Surely you aren't suggesting that European artists as a whole did not learn from nature, or that they all treated nature as uniform and repetitive? And surely you aren't saying that all Japanese artists learned from nature the same way?
I am very interested in where "style" comes from in art. How do groups (whether they are nations or religious groups or tribes) come to develop a common way of perceiving things? What caused art nouveau or art deco or any other style to flourish in its time? Does it come from the climate? The landscape? The diet? We could compile long lists of factors that make a difference, but I don't think it's genetic.
thanks for your questions, david, and i'd love to hear anyone out there's opinion where style comes from....
this quote: "this learning process from nature accounts for those characteristics of japanese art which are lacking in european art." isn't mine; rutherford alcock said that in 1878. i think that including what was being written and thought at the time is not only interesting but also importantly relevant.
some thoughts on style: the calligraphy of a culture i think contributes tremendously to the style of art that develops. perhaps also religious orientations add to that. the west developed writing with many straight lines, and japan softened even those straightish lines it inherited from china.
the nature-based religions out of which buddhism evolved, and buddhism itself is rooted in impermanence, whereas christianity is rooted in life eternal.
hanging around japan for a while, then going directly to paris made me believe that there was something about the whimsey of the light that, when added to the forms and figures arriving from japan at that moment, turned easily into art nouveau.
but some was direct theft (benevolent theft) as i'll illustrate (if i have not already done so).
the more i look at, read about, this particular time in history, the more i think it's anything but random. it's very complex, there's certainly nothing like one answer, but it's not incomprehensible and it's not a mystery.
Post a Comment
hi, and thanks so much for stopping by. i spend all too much time thinking my own thoughts about this stuff, so please tell me yours. i thrive on the exchange!
<< Home