Paul Klee, Structural II (1934)Select one of the paintings posted and review it according to Alberti's criteria for painting. First, decide how you understand Alberti's criteria. Then, talk about the painting and the ways that it appeals to its viewers.
9 comments:
According to Alberti, painting is divided into three parts from nature. First “in seeing a thing, we say it occupies a place…guiding an outline with a line” -> circumscription. Second, “we understand that several planes of the observed body belong together” -> composition. Third “we determine more clearly the colors and qualities of the planes” -> reception of light.
For this painting, there isn't a solid outline that guides the form of the object that Paul Klee paints. As far as composition, the structure and organization of the painting doesn't reflect the theme. This painting doesn't have an istoria. The reception of light shows that the focus is in the center because of all the colors displayed, but there aren't any shadows that portray depth. Looking at the painting as a whole, we see large squares, the bigger picture. However, if we refine our visual search, we see minute squares that take different forms and shapes.
I feel that Alberti wouldn't relate to this painting. I don't see the story in this painting, and Alberti wouldn't have much to say about Paul Klee's artwork. This painting is abstract, but we can stare at it for a while and try to figure out the istoria. I also didn't find much ethos, pathos, or logos associated with this painting.
interesting... i like the bold claim: "this painting doesn't have an istoria." do others agree?
Leon Battista Alberti mentions three criteria in which paintings are considered art and beautiful. All paintings are made up of three things: circumscription, composition, and the reception of light. Circumscription describes the turning of the outline in painting. Basically, circumscription refers to the lines and outlines of which is to be made. Composition describes the formation of figures with these lines and creating geometric shapes, planes, and regions – building something from these outlines. Finally, the reception of light, Alberti references, is how the artist implements light and dark into his work. Alberti mentions that a contrast between light and dark must always be present in the work – “no part of a body is lighted without another part being dark”. Additionally, Alberti mentions how colors, not only shades and hues of white and black, will also create copiousness and the variety of colors will greatly add to the pleasure and fame of a painting.
Now on to “Structural II”. The first thing I can’t help but notice is the formation of the painting. It is created out of small boxes, squares. This idea of painting is parallel to Alberti’s when he mentions the “thin veil, finely woven”. This veil is a tool which painters use, which is essentially a grid, to help them accurately create their shapes with respect to the actual form. Paul Klee seems to be doing this in a literal sense as he is creating his painting with this veil. Upon first looking ath the painting, it is apparent that it consists of lines and outlines – which is Alberti’s first criteria of paintings. Second, although Klee’s composition is flat, is contains images and planes regardless. One can make out a house, a gate, or whatever the mind conjures. Because the painting is so abstract, Klee’s purpose may have been just that – to question the viewer as to whether or not this painting has a purpose. As for me, I think that the purpose of this painting is to find it’s purpose – a never ending cycle of looking for answers but never finding them. Lastly, the use of colors is great in this painting. Dominated by shades of green, there are various color elements as well. One can make out blues and reds. This further makes the viewer question, “why emphasize on green and add blues and reds? Is it to provide form to the painting? Is it to color other elements?” As viewers of this painting, we can never know. Perhaps this is Alberti’s biggest point to prove, the painter must give the viewer a sense of wonder and doubt. Why is this painting a painting? What makes it a painting? Although there are no clear answers, this is what Alberti sems to emphasize – that painting is not only about lines, shapes, and color but about beauty and imagination, which is ever present in this simple, yet complex work of art.
Alberti says that "painting strives to represent things seen...the observed body belong together...(and) determine the clearly the colours and qualities of the plane".These are the three categories that paintings are divided into according to Alberti. On top of the categories is istoria, or the story told by the work.
Now I believe that for this painting it meets the three mentioned standards. Though it seems abstract, it leaves the viewer as the one to interpret what is being portrayed. You see what you see and I see what I see, the point is that it represents things that are seen, not necessarily one thing in particular. Secondly, it is open to interpretation by each individual but i can see the pictures story(istoria) as a whole. It appears to be a town with houses, streets and walls. these different aspects make the town that is the painting, so the "body belong(s) together". Finally the third aspect that satisfies Alberti's standards for a painting, is the different colors and colors according to Alberti must be abundant and not always black and white. Alberti makes a comment about how imagination is a large aspect to be regarded in painting and I think this painting leaves alot to imagination.
Alberti recognizes three main criteria that lend to the creation of a pleasant painting: circumscription, composition and reception of light. According to Alberti, circumscription is "guiding an outline with a line". Though it seems least tedious of the three, these lines must be finely drawn to avoid detection in order to establish the beginnings of a great painting. Then comes composition, or the "overall organization of the painting"; along with this comes Alberti's idea of istoria. Istoria, the greatest work of the painter, is the story or narrative that is present, boldly or subtlety, or told by the painter/painting. The final aspect of the painting is reception of light and introduction of colors.
In this piece of art by Paul Klee, most of the criterion is met. Circumscription is present. This is what enables viewers to see and/or imagine the different shapes, images and contours of lines. Albeit there isn't one solid line outlining a complete figure, nor is it finely sketched, there are divisions of geometric patterns and shapes.
Composition wise, I'm not quite sure if there is an istoria, or a story being told by this painting. Based on the literal sense of the term composition, there doesn't seem to be any logical placement of objects. However, where they are divided, there seems to be a repitition of line patterns. Suprisingly, things seem to fit and not fit together in the painting. It's interesting how the objects in the center of the artwork are painted while those around them are not, but I'm not sure if Klee intended that to be part of his composition. In the lecture notes, Professor Lupton mentions that in order to distinguish the differences between composition and istoria, we can "think of 'composition' as more abstract, and 'istoria' as involving content or meaning." In this case, this distinction can be applied because the painting can be visualized as an abstract piece with no coherent meaning.
Alberti sees color as the last touch added to a painting. Alberti states: "light has the power to vary colours." In the painting, the most vibrant of the colors is the red, and it is repeated a few times, though in different shades. This is also similar with the blues and the greens. It's as if Klee added white to the same color, to create a lighter hue, adding dimension, which is what I think Alberti is communicating (but I'm probably mistaken). It's intriguing how Klee used lights and shadows to add dimension to his art. The addition of vivid colors makes certain parts of the painting stand out, and are also aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Alberti mentions that "copiousness and variety of colours greatly add to the pleasure...of the painting". Because only the center part of Klee's art has colors, the eye is drawn to it. In relation to light and dark, had Klee done the entire painting without darker areas, there wouldn't be much depth or contemplation.
Overall, I think Alberti wouldn't agree nor disagree with this painting. Klee has, for the most part, achieved the criterion necessary for creating a beautiful painting. Though there is the lack of tangible meaning, any viewer or passerby may come up with his or her own interpretation of what Klee is evoking.
how would we identify the rhetorical elements of this painting--the logos (istoria) and ethos and pathos discussed in lecture?
p.s. or what does the absence of istoria (i.e. content) leave to the composition?? nice posts, here.
"Painting contains a divine force which not only makes absent men present, as friendship is said to do, but moreover makes the dead seem almost alive." Said by Alberti, this is always true when depicting and analyzing a painting. Factors that don't seem obvious are because the divinity is not superficial, but is deep within the painting. In his writing, Alberti explains the thorough manner to analyze well. This painting by Paul Klee is an assortment of designs, patterns, colors, and shapes. These patterns in this piece of artwork are so beautiful, foremost, because of of the association with painting. This painting by Klee most certainly follows the "criteria" set by Alberti. We can take the various patterns that compose Klee's painting, and we can see that the several plans of the painting, or observed body, belong together, therefore making a legit composition. The circumscription also outlines the painting, which in turn, gives excellent reception of light. I believe Alberti would praise the "istoria" of this painting. All of the details withing the painting fit smoothly together, to create an overall complete portrait.
Alberti says that painting is comprised of three categories. These categories are composition, circumspection, and color/light. In the category of composition, the elements of the painting fit together as the pieces of a quilt would be sewn together. The painting thus looks like a large quilt telling a story. In the category of circumspection, which is the lines and shapes of the painting, the artist uses many straight lines and angles. By using this technique, the artist creates various textures and seems to almost weave the many pieces together as if in a quilt. the third element is color/light. By using various earthy tones, the artist creates the image of a composition that seems to mimic the earth, and almost tell a story of how various differing elements of the world come together as one. The istoria of the painting seems to be comprised of telling a story of the world, as if mirroring how the world is composed of various elements which all come together as a diverse but single quilt.
Post a Comment