Queensland Art Gallery Presscuttings Book 8 : Pressclippings, 1977-1981

..... , .. , •••,. ,,... 0 • 1111&1 Ap111 Melbourne, Vlctort1 9=rom "COURIER MAIL" Brisbane, Qld. 17 JUN 1980 at price the original? TOO often the realm of the artist seems to be some Ivory tower far removed by time or physical distance. What many of us need 10 realise is :ha: :he arli11·i1 very much one of us. The very specinl difference is 1ha1 lhe arlis: hns chosen 11 palh of posilivc ac:ion. In visu11I lcrms. lhe ar:isl hns communicnled lo us hi& responses 10 si:ua:ions :ha: hnvc special donccrn 10 him us an individual. Sometimes the communica:iun is no: 11 simple dialoauc. There ore limes when :he message is clouded by lhc range of experiences or cul:ural background of the nr:isl or :he viewer. • , Nol so very long ago I wus discussing Peter ' Clarke's painting "March JO:h" wi:h a group visiting the Queensland Ar: Gallery. I mentioned Iha! research had indicated lhal March JO:h in 1975 (:he year lhe painting was produced) was Enslcr Da_y. und 1h1s consideru• lion added cx:ra dimensions 10 our apprccia– lion or intcrprclolion of :he work. The gril:y black areas could possibly refer lo the darkness :hat covered lhe car:h on Chris1•~ death: :he jag~ed incised line could J10S.•ibly refer 10 :he fac: :ha: :he veil of :he 1cmplc was rcn:; :he direction of the linework had un ascending ~uulity hi i:: and the patch of intense blue could. pcrhnp, make some reference to hope for tomorrow af:cr I he bloodshed suggested by the red area to the right hand side and lower portion of the painling. At lhc completion of my disser:ation :he teacher accompanying lhe group expressed her appreciation and then added that she hud lot me complclc my "story" for her personal benefil, bul lhe associations with Easter meant little lo the. group because with one exception they were all Buddhist nnd lhat one lass hud been a Roman Catholic , for only a fortnight. II really brought home to me 1hc considera– tion that visual arls arc nol necessarily lhc universal communicalors I hod for so long believed 1hcm lo be. Cultural backgrnunds nnd the range of experiences and contac:s with works of art ART By JOHN MASSY Education Officer at the Queensland Art Gallery contribute significantly 10 lhe communication possible between artist and viewer through the work of art. It is possible 10 teach art in schools using reference materials such as reproductions on paper or color trnnsparencies. and students' examples us contact with produced works. However, a student has an immeasurably richer aesthelic experience if that person has the opportunity 10 come inlo contact wilh original works of mcril. With high quality rcproduclions of master works avnilablc in u range of presenting formats - as film. video, color slides. reproduct ions on puper and in reference books - one could qucsti,in the worth of the effort und expense involved in ori;anising a visit to an art gullcry. Having ubsen•cd first hand the responses of students to origina l works in a gallery situation. I can only cundude that no effort is 100 great, nu price loo high. Young visitors arc frequently more willing 10 interpret works and indicate their observa– tions. With the assimilation of some know– ledge. ulder students seem unwilling lo offer opinions for fear of being considered wrong or found wunling in information. Observation of reaclions to painlings in 1hc recent "America and Europe - A Ccnlury of Modern Masters" Exhibition indicated a slrong preference for the works produced most recently parlicularly 1hosc with a phologra– phically "real" approach 10 presentation. Two olher works that were extremely popular were paintings lhat showed technical mastery and greal aucnlion to delail, but which made no profound slalements. Is our allention too much directed lo maslcring merely lhe mechanics of the pain1ing process"! Do we give 100 li1tlc a1ten1ion 10 lhe very real vnluc of lhc artis1·s prescnling unique viewpoints or original modes of thinking or interpretation"! Arc we more at case when lhc slalcmcnl by lhc urtisl is apparently simple? Has lhe dcvclopmenl of visual communicalion, par– licularly through the medium of television, made us dependent more on simple visual messages rulhcr than our being prepared lo engage in some literal or logical lhinking"/ /\ visit 10 an urt gallery makes ii possible lo integrate practical art studies wi1h attention to arl history. It would nppcar Iha: for too many people divorce these considerutions. ricasso suggested in 1928 that nol enough people know aboul the "plustic values" of paintings - those manipulative elemcnls beyond mere technical control, such as line, direclion. shape. color. lone, harmony or conlrast, and texture that the nrlisl has al his disposal to give expression lo his unique interpretations of his world. Thul observation holds true today. II is more. thun u little disconccrtin~ to llnd lhat the primary interest of some viewers cenlres upon a monetary valuation for a particular work, or whether lhc picture frame was chosen by lhe ar1is1, and 1hu1 lhcy felt much more secure in being provided with historical data related to lhe artist's life and lhc painling of 1hc parlicular work. The opporlunily lo observe in delail the manipula11on of working malcrials nflcr enjoying initially lhc work as a whole - is seldom possible in reproduced works. This is particularly so in sculplurc. The freedom lo chungc viewpoint can prcscnl lhe viewer wilh" more t,hun one poinl of reference leading 10 new discoveries in artistic construction. Although the sizes of works arc often indicated with reproduced works, ii is difficult to gauge mentally the scale of the original. . Book reproductions and slide showings tend 10 reduce all works to a common dimcnaionul denominator. In the presence of the original work. considerations of scale and lexturc arc immediately possible. On mu·ny occasions, works of art on display in an art ~ollcry arc of a scale or approach 1ha1 is radically different from what mighl be lhc personal preference of 1hc viewer. There is a difference be1ween apprccialion and "liking". One mlty not "like" n significant or profound work or orl, but it can be npprccialed in art, historical, or cultural lcrms. I There is a very real difference between objects I as decoration and works of art for gallery displ11y. Thal is not 10 1ay that worthwhile works of arl cannol find a home in a house, bul many great works of art are so demanding of lhc viewer lhal conlinued conlnct could be mcnlully uhaus1ing. An art gallery 10 which the public hos access is lhc obvious Jocalion for such lrcasurcs. ' Surely lhc visual nrts deserve much more direct observation by more of our young people to ensure a future generation of visually enlightened, aeslhetically uwarc people who do know something of the " plastic values". The Educalion Officer or Gallery guide can providc'the visitor wilh poinls of reference, but a mosl important consideration is a willingness on lhc pnrL or the viewer 10 enter in10 a 1wo-way communication with 1!,~ work. The ortisl provides II starting poin1, but often lhc viewer will find new depths in his own experience if he is willing 10 accept 1ha1 the orlist is not simply 1clling him a story wilh a definite beginning nnd conclusion. Let us forgel 1hc prices and consider the arlistic worth.