Category Archives: Part 3

In what sense is Whiteread’s ‘House’ indexical and why does this matter for an interpretation of this work? Would someone overlooking this feature be wrong or would that simply be a different interpretation?

‘House’ was created by British artist Rachel Whiteread between the months of August and October 1993. It is a cast of a South East derelict London archetypal Victorian terrace surrounded by parkland. The original house had been left standing independently after surrounding tower blocks had been demolished by the local council.

To create her cast of the house, Whiteread and her team boarded up windows, dug new foundations for support, removed internal fixtures and sprayed the entire interior with white concrete. Finally, the exterior building materials of the house were removed leaving only the external white concrete cast visible (Bois et al. 2004:634).

In what sense is this sculpture indexical and why is this important when interpreting ‘House’. A work of art operates like a sign. By referring to Charles Pierce’s theory of signs (1867-8), we can focus attention on the reference that the sign makes to an object other that itself. The signifier (or the representamen) refers to the object. Pierce maintains that the meaning of the object is created in the mind of the interpretant (Plato Stanford online. Accessed 02/04/2020)

Pierce identified three types of sign:

1. Icon – physical resemblance(picture or image).

2. Index – direct relation with causal link (e.g smoke is index of fire).

3 Symbol – no relation between the signified and signifier and usually socially construted/learned (traffic lights)

The indexical sign refers to marks, imprints and casts that are affects of which a process is the cause. There is a direct relation between the sign and the object and the interprentant is essential in making sense of this. For example, smoke is an indexical sign of fire (Chandler 2017).

Whiteread’s ‘House’ acts as an indexcial sign. It was a cast of a house intentionally made from sprayed concrete. Whiteread created a ‘building within a building… hardened space into mass.’ (Whiteread, 1993). The house became a concrete hardened block with no way in. Negative and invisible space had become visible. It is then for the interpretant to define meaning and understand the direct relation between the sign (cast) and the object (concept/meaning)

If we were to imagine footprints in the sand, we would associate the imprint with the concept of a human or animal having previously walked there. We can apply the same interpretation to ‘house’. An impression has been left by the construction of a temporal human habitat (the house). It draws attention to the lives lived within that now visible ‘space’.

“You live and breathe beneath the skin of the house and we’re like these little animals that have been gnawing away at the surface.” (Whiteread, 1993)

“I wanted to mummify the air in the room, stopping time, marking time. Materials that solidify. holding space, filling something up.’ (Whiteread, 2017

The ‘house’ sculpture became a sign for social home life, and in this case working class home life. ‘A mute memorial to everyday lives, opposing the transience and banality of our existence’. (Fullerton 2016:129)

The sculpture draws attention to the spaces we inhabit and how these spaces are temporal. The transient nature of these structures was highlighted when ‘house was demolished by bulldozers 80 days after its construction. Wiped away in moments, like footprints in the sand washed away by the waves.

Someone overlooking the work of art as an indexical sign would not necessarily be wrong. There are many ways to interpret art and semiotics is just one of them. The interpretant may approach the object without seeing the ‘sign’ and understand the work of art in a different way. There may be concepts relating to social inequality or concepts relating to gender and women based in the home during the 20th Century. Perhaps it is telling of a successful art work that enables the viewer to interprate the work in multiple ways.

List of Illustrations

Fig 1. The derelict Victorian house at Grove Road in South East London that was to provide Whiteread with a model to cast. (1993) At https://thefunambulist.net/arts/unwall-rachel-whiteread Accessed (02/04/2020)

Fig 2. Whiteread, R. (1993) House [concrete] Photo Sue Omerod At https://www.apollo-magazine.com/house/ (Accessed 02/04/2020)

Fig 3. Pierce’s triadic semiotics model At https://languagelinguisticcodeandspeech.weebly.com/char (Acles-s-pierce.html (Accessed 02/04/2020)

Bibliography

Bois, Y. A, (2004) with B. Buchloch, H. Foster, R. Krauss, Art since 1900. London and New York, Thames and Hudson (Accessed 02/04/2020)

Chandler, D. (2017) Semiotics for Beginners At http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/S4B/sem02.html?LMCL=oB0il4 (Accessed 02/04/2020)

Fullerton, E. (2016) Artrage:the story of the Britart revolution London, Thames and Hudson (Accessed 02/04/2020)

House, Rachel Whiteread documentary Artangel (1993) At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVueGlKQTE8 (Accessed 02/04/2020)

The eye. Rachel Whiteread – House illuminations media At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEtsYIIIfkw(Accessed 02/04/2020)

What does it mean to say nature is culture? Can there be one without the other? What would it be like? Look up the term ‘binary opposition’ – does this apply to nature and culture? Write this in 3 paragraphs. For, against and a conclusion.

What does it mean to say nature is culture?

To understand what it might mean to say ‘nature is culture’ it is important to understand the definition of both these terms. We can take the first definition of each word to be relevant for this discussion. The Cambridge English Dictionary (online) defines culture as:

‘The way of life, especially the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people.’

In terms of art, the definition of culture refers to specific disciplines such as ‘music, art, theatre and literature.’

The Oxford dictionary(online) defines nature as:

1. The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape and other features and products of the earth as opposed to humans or human creations.
2. The basic or inherent features , character or qualities of something.

So how can we say that nature (the physical world excluding humans) is culture (the way of life for a group of people)?

It is interesting that for all definitions of ‘nature’, human beings are excluded. There is a tendency for human beings to be perceived as separate from nature or the natural world. One can go for a walk in nature or explore the natural environment but as an outsider and not as a part of that world. Since Darwin’s theory of evolution, it has become widely accepted (apart from some religions) that humans are mammals in the animal kingdom and that we have evolved throughout history alongside other species of life. What we are experiencing is a detachment or estrangement from nature and perhaps if humans were included in the definition of nature we would have a better understanding of what it means to say that ‘nature is culture’.

Assuming that humans are perceived to be part of the natural world, we can start to look at human culture as part of nature. Cultural evolutionary theorists argue that the capacity for culture emerged naturally as part of human evolution (Lewens, 2017). The existence of culture is reliant on humans living in social groups, reinforcing agreed beliefs and customs that are passed down from generation to generation through genetics, social learning and imitation in a unified process (Bloch, 2012 cited in Lewens, 2017). Richerson and Boyd (2005) states that culture is :

‘.. information capable of affecting individuals behaviour that is acquired from other members of their species through teaching, imitation and other forms of social learning.’ (Richerson and Boyd 2005 cited in Lewens 2017)

Human cultures have been able to develop to an advanced level and beyond anything capable of other species.

We can only view ‘nature as culture’ and vice versa if we are to include humans in the broader definition of ‘nature’. Human beings are animals within nature’s animal kingdom and it is only our cultural perception that detaches ourselves from it.. Culture has evolved naturally with human evolution and could therefore be viewed as part of nature expressed and experienced by the behaviour of the human species.

Can there be one without the other? What would it be like?

Culture is a way of life of a particular group of people and thus only exists within the world of human beings. If there were no humans then there would be no culture and nature would therefore continue regardless. Nature without a culture that lived in harmony with nature (prehistoric, tribal, aboriginal) would look the same.

Nature without modern capitalist global culture would look completely different. It would be flourishing, unpolluted and other species would be thriving as opposed to being endangered.

Culture without nature would be impossible if we accept that humans and our culture are a part of nature. However, if we were to accept the general definition of nature that excludes humans from nature then we could (at a stretch!) see a culture existing without nature. This could be some future culture that exists in a purely mechanical and artificial world perhaps after the planet has been destroyed.

Look up the term ‘binary opposition’ – does this apply to nature and culture? Write this in 3 paragraphs. For, against and a conclusion.

The online Oxford Reference defines binary oppostion as:

‘A pair of mutually-exclusive signifiers in a paradigm set representing categories which are logically opposed and which together define a complete universe of discourse: for example, alive or dead. In such oppositions each term necessarily implies its opposite and there is no middle ground.’ (httpRs://www.oxfordreference.com/)

Nature and culture in binary opposition

Nature and culture can be seen as being in binary opposition to one another. Cambridge Dictionary (online) defines nature as ‘the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape and other features and products of the earth as opposed to humans’. Culture exists independently within the realm of the human species. It is a product of social learning that is passed down from generation to generation (Richerson & Boyd 2005 cited in Lewens 2017). This contradiction between culture and the physical world of nature is due to the fact that from the first emerging societies, humans have consciously determined their own history (culture) whereas animals take part in their own history without knowledge or desire (nature) (Engels, 1883 cited in Silvius s.d.). Freud would argue that natural human instincts have been suppressed to allow for cultural development and that this has detached or put us in opposition from nature (Freud cited in Silvius s.d).

Nature and culture are not in binary opposition

It can be argued that nature and culture are not in opposition to one another. As discussed above, the human species has evolved on earth as part of natural evolution within the animal kingdom. Culture has developed as humans have evolved to live in larger social groups. Although the development of culture allows for the manipulation of the natural environment, this is no different to beavers or elephants but is perhaps on a larger scale. Human culture is reliant and intertwined with nature for survival.

Conclusion

To determine whether nature and culture are in binary opposition is a matter open for debate. This would depend on whether you believed that humans and culture are part of nature or whether, like John Searle, you believe that the world is separated into the realms of nature and humans. It might be relevant to note that nature is defined by human culture and can therefore be defined by different cultures in different ways.

Bibliography

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/culture (Accessed 30.03.2020)

https://www.lexico.com/definition/nature (Accessed 30.03.2020)

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095506296 (Accessed 30.03.2020)

Lewens, T. (2017) Human nature, human culture: the case of cultural evolution The Royal Society Publishing 18.08.2017 At https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0018 (Accessed 30.03.2020)

Rothman, J. (2014) The Meaning of Culture The New Yorker 26.12.2014 At https://www.newyorker.com/books/joshua-rothman/meaning-culture (Accessed 30/03/2020)

Silvius, J (s.d.) Man and Nature, Part III: An Excursus into the Structuralist Opposition of Nature and Culture At The Charnel House – from Bauhaus to Beinhaus At https://thecharnelhouse.org/2011/03/24/man-and-nature-part-iii-an-excursus-into-the-structuralist-opposition-of-nature-and-culture/ (Accessed 30/03/2020)

Write a paragraph on a single work by Koons according to what you understand of the simulacrum.

The Greek philosopher Plato described the simulacrum as a corrupt copy that has lost connection with its original (Allen & Handley 2018). The post-modern sociologist and theorist Jean Baudrillard claims that in the age of the hyper-real the image precedes the real and that this is know as the ‘precession’ of simulacrum (Baudrillard, 1981). The copy is not treated as representation but as reality.

Koons’s porcelain sculpture of the deceased pop star Michael Jackson and his pet chimp can be seen as an example of the simulacrum in post-modern culture. This sculpture is reminiscent of a ‘tacky’ gift shop model with its golden paint, unnatural pose and exaggerated features. The only difference is that Koons’s sculpture is of an exaggerated size – nearly 2 metres wide. As an example of celebrity portrayed through the mass media, we do not know the ‘real’ Michael Jackson we only know the image or the simulation of this person. Dinallo (s.d. Accessed 23/03/20) states that ‘The simulacra is a simulation of the original which eventually proves dominant becoming the only truth and its own entity’. Deleuze (1983) explains that a copy of a copy is pushed to a point where it changes and is reversed into simulacrum. The reversal of copy and model means that resemblance comes to an end and this can be seen in the pop art movement. What is bought and sold in post-modern culture is the image and not the object.

The simulacrum can be related to Greenberg’s theory of avante-garde and kitsch (Greenberg 1960). Koon’s Michael Jackson and Bubbles model has an air of sentimentality and nostalgia that imitates the effects of art. It draws on external effects to achieve its ends. It doesn’t copy but imitates and bears no relation to the real.

“The simulacra is a simulation of the original which eventually proves dominant becoming the only truth and entity.” (Lidia Dinallo, s.d Accessed 23/03/20)

Illustrations

Fig 1. Koons J. (1988) Michael Jackson and Bubbles [porcelain] At https://whitneymedia.org/assets/image/592192/large_banality_e.2013.0080_michael_jackson_and_bubbles.jpg (Accessed 23/03/2020)

Bibliography

Allen, D. & Handley, A. (2018) ‘The most photographed Barn in America’: Simulacra of the sublime in American Art and photography Text Matters Vol.8 No.8 2018 At https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328672957_The_Most_Photographed_Barn_in_America_Simulacra_of_the_Sublime_in_American_Art_and_Photography (Accessed 23/03/2020

Baudrillard, J. (1981) Simulacra and Simulations From Jean Baudrillard, Selected Writings, ed. Mark Poster (Stanford; Stanford University Press, 1988). At https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5ae3/a24f445c44655a14da3048254885e3d13373.pdf?_ga=2.227913885.1050673049.1584982660-1385428089.1579533044 (Accessed 23/03/2020)

Deleuze, G. Krauss, R. (1983) Plato and the Simuacrum MIT Press October, Vol 27. (Winter, 1983) pp45-56 At https://www.jstor.org/stable/778495?seq=1 (Accessed 23/03/2020)

Dinallo, L. (s.d) Warhol’s work thesis At http://concordiaproject.tripod.com/essay2.html (Accessed 23/03/2020)

https://cla.purdue.edu/academic/english/theory/postmodernism/modules/baudrillardsimulation.html (Accessed 23/03/2020)

https://whitney.org/Exhibitions/JeffKoons#exhibition-artworks (Accessed 23/03/2020)

Shorey, P. (1963) The Allegory of the Cave trans. from Plato: Collected dialogues, ed. Hamilton & Cairns. Random House

“One cannot say the world is socially constructed and say there are misrepresentations.”

Reflect on this last sentence in as many words as necessary to form your own judgement.

In his book ‘The Construction of Social reality’, John Searle states that in our world there are ‘brute’ facts and ‘institutional facts’. ‘Brute’ facts exist regardless of human beings (mountains, rivers) but ‘institutional’ facts are specific to human existence. Through the development of language, discourse and agreement, ‘institutional’ facts exist to construct our social reality. Money, marriage, nations are examples of socially constructed ‘facts’ (Searle 1995:2).

By stating that the world is socially constructed through the agreement of human beings, then the representations of that world must be an accurate reflection of reality. It would seem that it is not possible for realities to be misrepresented.

However, perhaps this is not quite as clear cut as it first seems and requires further investigation.

Most societies remained unchanged over many centuries/millenia allowing for a solid reality based on the agreement of ‘institutional’ facts. Socially constructed reality could be seen as fairly static. The modern world can be seen as a constantly changing one – no two decades are the same. Globalisation has meant we are no longer part of one society but are also part of an even larger world society. We are now aware of other realities that differ to our own and have the opportunity to question our own culturally accepted institutional facts.

The mass media explosion has given the opportunity for misrepresentations of reality to infiltrate into society. Masquerading as representations of reality, false realities are appearing in image, text and discourse on a wide and far reaching scale.

One example that could illustrate this infiltration is an image of Nigel Farage during the Brexit campaign.

Farage is standing in front of a poster, claiming that the UK is at breaking point due to mass migration. This very strong image shows a long line of people heading towards the viewer. It suggests that we are becoming overwhelmed by immigrants who are ‘taking over our jobs and our country’ as they virtually stampede into the UK. However, if we learn that this isn’t actually a picture of migrants but refugees fleeing from a war zone elsewhere in the world we can see that this image is a misrepresentation (Stewart & Mason 2016). Unfortunately, the damage is already done, and some of society have already accepted this new image as a true representation of reality.

A split then occurs within society. Some people accept this false image as a representation as reality, whilst others can clearly see its false status. What we then get is two perceptions of reality. Both groups agree that immigration is the movement of people across borders, but one accepts the misrepresentation and sees migrants as job and home stealers wheras the other rejects the image and sees migrants as positively supporting and enriching their economy.

It is possible to claim that the world is socially constructed and say there are misrepresentations. These misrepresentations are able to actively ‘warp’ realities. The theory of the social construction of reality would need to encompass the fact that established ‘institutional facts’ are now under threat due to new world of mass media and globalisation that has the power and ability to alter human consciousness and reality.

Reflections

The concepts and thoughts that arose in this exercise required a lot or reflection. It was hard to articulate thoughts coherently and thus diagrams were created to enable and retain comprehension.

List of illustrations

Fig 1. Nigel Farage’s anti-immigrant poster during the Brexit campaign. Photograph: Mark Thomas/Rex/Shutterstock At https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farage-defends-ukip-breaking-point-poster-queue-of-migrants (Accessed 11/03/2020)

Fig 2. Diagram to show the effects of misrepresentations within a socially constructed society. [personal sketchbook notes]

Bibliography

Searle, J. R. (1995) The Construction of Social Reality GB: Penguin

Mason, R. & Stewart H. (2016) Nigel Farage’s anti-migrant poster reported to police The Gurdian online 16/6/2016 Accessed 11/03/2020)

Wikipedia Representation At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_(arts) (Accessed 11/03/2020)

Write 10 sentences containing any of the following words: origin, original or originality. Is the meaning much the same in each example or are there significant differences? Briefly comment on your findings.

1. Stephen Hawking often discussed theories about the origin of the universe.
2. Many film companies are turning to origin stories to create new films in their franchise.
3. She moved back to her country of origin.
4. They questioned whether the Picasso painting was an original.
5. I need to see the original copy of the manuscript.
6. The fashion designer had some original ideas.
7. The new version of the film was not very good. I much preferred the original.
8. I was impressed by the originality of her performance.
9. “Originality is the best form of rebellion” (Mike Sasso)
10. We thought that her painting expressed a lot originality.

The three words (origin, original, originality) used in the sentence examples all have some reference to the new, first, or beginning of something. However, there are differences in the meaning of each word.

Origin refers to the point where something (e.g person, object, tradition) begins, arises or is derived. (Lexico online dictionary accessed 22/02/2020). Original (noun)refers to an object or creation. This is the earliest form or first version of something from which copies can be made Cambridge dictionary online accessed 22/02/2020). Originality refers to the quality or state of something created/invented as being original (Merriam Webster online accessed 22/02/2020).

Bibliography

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/origin (Accessed 22/02/2020)

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/original (Accessed 22/02/2020)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originality (Accessed 22/02/2020)

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/5317724.Mike_Sasso (Accessed 22/02/2020)

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/origin (Accessed 22/02/2020)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/originality (Accessed 22/02/2020)

Find and collate 10 diverse examples of meta-painting from the 17th Century to the present.

Meta-painting

A meta-painting can be described as a painting that shows or suggests awareness of itself – it is a painting about ‘painting’. Lorenzo Pericolo(2013:12) states that ‘..meta-painting is the whole gamut of pictorial devices through which painting stages its fictiveness’. A meta-painting can partially uncover its materiality through suggesting or depicting its maker or the making of the painting. It can involve ‘the beholder as an active or even indispensable component of the image’ (Pericolo 2013:12); or incorporate a painting or paintings as an object of representation within the image. This inner picture or pictures can be described to be ‘nesting’ inside the outer picture (Mitchell 2006).

W.J.T Mitchell also explains ,when describing a ‘metapicture’, that the image can reflect or double itself – the same picture reappears inside the picture. This is known as the ‘mise en abine’. He also states that another form of metapicture or metapainting is:

‘The picture that is framed, not inside another picture, but within a discourse that reflects on it as an exemplar of ‘picturality’ as such.’ (Mitchell 2006)

This feels like quite a big statement from Mitchell and perhaps goes a little far because the implications of this would suggest that any picture can become a meta-picture. We could reference this idea of meta-painting in the realms of Clement Greenberg’s theory of abstract modernist painting. Modernist paintings were self-referential and drew attention to the nature of its medium -canvas, paint, texture and shape. Writer Ronald B Richard argues that all abstract paintings are meta-paintings as they emphasise the process of creation. This is supported by the earlier description of meta-paintings that partially uncover their materiality through suggesting or depicting its maker or the making of the painting.

Examples of meta-painting form the 17th Century to the present

1. ‘Las Meninas‘ (1656) Diego Velázquez

‘Las Meninas’ by Diego Velázquez is considered a masterpiece of Western painting. Painted for King Phillip IV of Spain in the 17th Century, Velázquez depicts a scene in his palace studio whereby the artist himself is seen in the process of painting alongside the King’s daughter Margaret and her court aides. The viewer is placed in an interesting position and is the source of the gaze for Velazquez, Margaret and several others in the room. Reflected in the mirror at the back of the room is the King and Queen which suggests that the viewpoint is from the King or Queen as they pose for their portrait perhaps awaiting Margaret to join them.

The presence of Velázquez himself indicates that the ‘Les Meninas’ is an early example of a meta-painting. The artist is shown in the creative process of creating his masterpiece . We are placed within the artists studio that has walls covered in paintings (the two at the back are copies of two Reubens paintings). This painting is definitely about the world of painting and gives us an insight into not what the artist sees when creating a portrait but what the sitter sees whilst the process occurs.

2. ‘The Art of Painting’ (ca. 1667) Johannes Vermeer

In this meta-painting by Vermeer, we are again viewing a painting about the creation and creator of a portrait painting. However, unlike ‘Las Meninas’‘ the viewer is positioned behind the painter (Vermeer) and allowed to see the staging of the scene and the object of representation – in this case a young girl holding a book and an instrument. We can peer over Vermeer’s shoulder and see the careful brushstrokes on his canvas as he takes in his subject matter.

3. ‘Reverse side of a painting’ (1670) Cornelius Gijsbrechts

On first viewing of Gijsbrechts Reverse Side of a Painting, I was convinced this was a 20th Century modern painting and not from the 17th Century! What we are viewing in this meta-painting is a realistic depiction of the back of a framed canvas, complete with a sales room ticket attached. The detail is extraordinary and includes the wooden inner and outer frames with splits in the wood and small nails surrounding the inner canvas. We, as the viewer are fooled into believing that this is a real painting but hung the wrong way round.

The artist has depicted the materiality of his craft. Viewers believe that they are looking at the physical materials that construct the framed canvas. Gijsbrechts was part of a group of 17th-century Dutch still-life painters known as ‘betriegertje (little trickster). Their aim was to decieve the viewer with their paintings of paintings.

4. ‘Gallery at the Louvre‘ (1831-33) Samuel F.B Morse

In Morse’s meta-painting of the Louvre, we are thrust into the institution of the art gallery and exposed to numerous classic paintings displayed on the walls including works by Titian and Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa. We are able to view paintings within the painting itself as well as experience the social institution of the gallery. Within the gallery are artists in the process of painting or drawing, presumably inspired by the surrounding masterpieces.

5.’The Treachery of Images‘, (1929) Rene Magritte

Magritte’s surrealist painting ‘The treachery of Images’ is quite an interesting meta-painting because it invites the viewer to contemplate what they are looking at – a pipe or a painting? The words beneath the painting of a pipe state in French – ‘This is not a pipe.’ Yet it is not clear whether this refers to the writing or the image of a pipe. The writing is not a pipe but also the image is not a pipe because it is purely the representation of a pipe using oil paints on canvas. However, it is a pipe because we perceive it as one even though we know that it is a painting!

6. ‘Droste’s Cacao‘ (1904) Jan Misset

The effect of ‘mise en abine’ refers to an image that recursivley places a copy of itself within itself (often infinitely) and is most commonly found in photography. This type of picture often known as the ‘Droste’ effect originate from the tins of Dutch Droste cocoa from the early 20th Century. The nurse in the tins image is holding a tin that shows a repeated and recursive image.

7. ‘The face of war‘ (1940) Salvador Dali

I believe that ‘The Face of War’ by Surrealist artist Salvador Dali could be seen as a meta-painting displaying the effect of ‘mise en abine’. This unnerving face most likely refers to the horrors experienced in the Spanish Civil war. Our eyes are drawn to the face of death with its eye sockets and mouth wide open with its infinite recurring image. In the bottom right of the painting, we can also see the imprint of Dali’s hand revealing and suggesting the presence of creator.

8. ‘Las Meninas’ (1957) Pablo Picasso

During the year 1957, Picasso created 44 paintings inspired by Diego Velázquez’s Las Meninas (1656). This version is perhaps the one that recreates the scene most faithfully to the original. Picasso sticks to a black, white and grey palette and keeps the original figures in a similar position. We have already discussed the original Las Meninas as being a meta-painting and now we have a 20th Century painting based upon a painting that is about painting! A meta-meta painting!

9.‘Brushstrokes’ (1965) Roy Lichtenstein

In this pop-art example of a meta-painting, Lichtenstein depicts the making of a painting. We can see the artist’s hand clutching the paint brush just after they have roughly placed red paint on a surface. We are viewing a close up and intimate moment between the painter and their painting.

10. ‘Letter on the Blind 11’ (2014) Frank Stella

This last example of what might controversially be termed a ‘meta-painting’ was created by Frank Stella in 2014. As an abstract non-representational artwork, the viewer is conscious that they are looking at a painting. The use of materials becomes apparent as the artist has emphasised the canvas’s shape by using geometric lines to construct the pattern within. Recurring and diminishing squares create a ‘mise en abine’ effect as our eyes are drawn to the centre of the canvas.

Reflections

This was a really enjoyable exercise. It was interesting to learn about different paintings from different periods and explore how they can be defined as meta-paintings. I tried to include a diverse range of paintings and couldn’t resist adding an abstract one at the end as I thought the idea that abstract paintings could be meta-paintings was an intriguing concept.

List of illustrations

Fig 1. Velázquez, D. (1656) Las Meninas [oil on canvas] At https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-centuries-people-las-meninas (Accessed 17/02/2020)

Fig 2. Vermeer, J. (ca 1667) The Art of Painting [oil on canvas] At https://www.nature.com/articles/palcomms201768 (Accessed 17/02/2020)

Fig 3. Gijsbrechts, C. (1670) Trompe l’oeil. Reverse Side of a Painting [oil on canvas] At https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cornelius_Norbertus_Gijsbrechts_-_Trompe_l%27oeil._The_Reverse_of_a_Framed_Painting_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (Accessed 17/02/2020)

Fig 4. Morse, S.F.B. (1831-33) Gallery at the Louvre [oil on canvas] At https://www.terraamericanart.org/what-we-offer/our-art-collection/terra-collection-initiative-samuel-f-b-morses-gallery-of-the-louvre-and-the-art-of-invention/ (Accessed 18/02/2020)

Fig 5. Magritte, R. (1929) The Treachery of Images [oil on canvas] At https://www.renemagritte.org/the-treachery-of-images.jsp (Accessed 18/02/2020)

Fig 6. Misset, J. (1904) Droste’s Cacao At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droste_effect (Accessed 18/02/2020)

Fig 7. Dali, S. (1940) The face of war [oil on canvas] At https://www.dalipaintings.com/the-face-of-war.jsp (Accessed 18/02/2020)

Fig 8. Picasso, P. (1957)  The Maids of Honor (Las Meninas, after Velázquez) [oil on canvas] At http://web.guggenheim.org/exhibitions/picasso/artworks/maids_of_honor (Accessed 18/02/2020)

Fig. 9 Lichtenstein (1965) Brushstrokes [screen-print on paper] At https://www.singulart.com/en/collection/inspired-by-roy-lichtenstein-1189 (Accessed 19/02/2020)

Fig 10. Stella, F. (2014) Letter on the Blind 11′ [offset lithograph] At https://www.sartle.com/artwork/letter-on-the-blind-ii-frank-stella (Accessed 19/02/2020)

Bibliography

Finch, C. (s.d) Gallery at the Louvre, Morse code Art net At http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/finch/mccoullough-morse-gallery-at-the-louvre-4-13-11.asp (Accessed 19/02/2020)

Gronstad, A. & Vagnes, O. (2006) What do pictures want? Interview with W.J.T. Mitchell Image & Narrative, (November 2006)At https://www.visual-studies.com/interviews/mitchell.html (Accessed 19/02/2020)

Guggenheim, Comparative works The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation 2012 At http://web.guggenheim.org/exhibitions/picasso/artworks/maids_of_honor (Accessed 19/02/2020)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droste_effect

https://www.dalipaintings.com/the-face-of-war.jsp

https://www.renemagritte.org/the-treachery-of-images.jsp

https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lichtenstein-brushstroke-p07354

Lesser, C. (2018) Centuries Later, People Still Don’t Know What to Make of “Las Meninas” Artsy Mar 23, 2018 At https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-centuries-people-las-meninas (Accessed 19/02/2020)

Pericolo, L. (2013) What is Metapainting? The self-aware image Twenty Years Later At https://www.academia.edu/16776812/What_is_Metapainting_The_Self-Aware_Image_Twenty_Years_Later

Richardson, R.B. (2011) Abstract paintings are metapaintings At http://ronaldbrichardson.com/metafiction/abstract-paintings-are-meta-paintings/ (Accessed 19/02/2020)

Web Gallery of art GIJSBRECHTS, Cornelis Norbertus Reverse side of a painting At https://www.wga.hu/html_m/g/gijsbrec/cornelis/reverse.html (Accessed 18/02/2020)

Can you see a connection between Emerson’s remarks and the view expressed by Searle in Chapter One? Where do their views overlap and where do they differ?

Ralph Waldo Emerson	Similarities	John Searle
Two things make up the world; Human history – (artefacts) and natural phenomena. The passage of time illustrates that nature is static and the culture of humans is trans-formative.	There is a natural world that exists and would exist regardless of humanity’s existence.	There are portions of the world that exist due to human agreement (objective facts such as money and nations) and portions of the world that exist regardless of humans (brute facts -the natural world e.g rivers, mountains)
‘Art’ is defined as the uses humans make of ‘nature’. “Nature, in the common sense, refers to essences unchanged by man; space, the air, the river, the leaf. Art is applied to the mixture of his will with the same things, as in a house, a canal, a statue, a picture.” (Emerson, 1883)	There is a definite distinction between nature and the man made world /reality.	Social reality is constructed by us to serve our purposes.
Nature is not constructed by humans but it is expressed through them. Man is the ‘transparent eyeball’ viewing unity of nature and self. A spirit/energy eminates throughout the universe. Art as a means of ‘revelation’ – artist as prophet or seer. (Allen & Handley 2018)		Consciousness is a biological and physical consequence of evolution.
Natural facts are seen as symbols of spiritual facts. Nature is a metaphor of the human mind.
Outer creation (nature) gives us language for the inner creation (the soul). ‘Every natural fact is a symbol of some spiritual fact.’ Nature and not humans form the true basis for morality.	Language is important for humanity.	Institutional facts are language dependent. The development of language in the human species allowed us to create words that represented and symbolised something. Formulation of words (and language) allowed for dependent and independent thought that then allowed for discussion and agreement.

Reflections

Both writers deemed that there is a distinct separateness between the natural world and the human world. Searle focused his analysis on the ‘brute’ facts (rivers, mountains) and the ‘institutional’ facts that allow humans to create objective realities within their culture (e.g money, class systems, national borders etc). Emerson, writing in the first half the 19th Century separated the two by looking at the artefacts of human history and how the passage of time showed nature and not culture to be immutable.

Both writers discussed human language and its relation to social reality. Searle looks at this logically and rationally by following the development of human language that allowed for conscious thought and therefore discussion and agreement on social constructs. Emerson, writing prior to Darwin’s theory of evolution, discusses how reality, expressed though language, is a reflection of the language of nature. Emerson looks at language poetically and metaphorically.

“Every appearance in nature corresponds to some state of the mind, and that state of the mind can only be described by presenting that natural appearance as its picture. An enraged man is a lion, a cunning man is a fox, a firm man is a rock, a learned man is a torch. A lamb is innocence; a snake is subtle spite; flowers express to us the delicate affections. Light and darkness are our familiar expression for knowledge and ignorance; and heat for love.”

(Emerson, 1836)

Emerson appears to have an idealistic and transcendental viewpoint wheras Searle’s is more realistic. I particularly like the fact that he acknowledges that man is actually a part of nature, ‘nature is expressed through humans’, and that man should experience that unity or ‘oneness’. This feels very reminiscent of eastern Buddhist philosophy.

Bibliography

Emerson, R.W. (1836) Nature At https://archive.vcu.edu/english/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/emerson/nature.html (Accessed 01/02/2020)

Emerson, R. W (1834) The Naturalist Delivered to the Boston Natural HIstory Society, 7 May, 1934. At https://archive.vcu.edu/english/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/emerson/essays/naturalist.html (Accessed 01/02/2020)

Searle, J. R (1995) ‘The Construction of Social Reality’ London: Penguin books.