Nicole Schneider
Through the study of art, it has become a common notion that a work of art is comprised of three individual parts responsible for its very existence: the artist, the viewer, and the art itself. Time and time again, we constantly mistake art as a fixed process in which an artist projects what he sees onto a surface, and the viewer holds all the “power” of interpretation. However, to really understand art, we must realize that the “process” is completely determined by the way the artist perceives and interprets the image he is attempting to convey.
In Looking at Art, by Alice Elizabeth Chase, Chase gives rise to a major challenge artists are faced with. She recognizes that each artist is tasked with the difficulty of trying to portray an image before him onto the confined surface of his canvas. Through careful analysis of various pieces of art from different cultures and time periods, Chase gives us some insight on the different methods artists have used throughout history in response to this challenge. She does this, specifically, by presenting the different ways artists throughout history have conveyed the vastness of landscapes and sceneries within the limits of exponentially smaller surfaces.
For example, she explains that ancient Egyptian artists tended not to focus on the details of a landscape. Rather their depictions can be compared to a map: a mere outline of a scene that lies before them. These artists emphasized the shapes of images and clear indications of how exactly the landscape appears. In addition, many Greek artists would convey landscapes as simply a “setting for human figures” (page 20), while ancient Roman artists would use landscapes to emphasize the greatness of heroes and the grandeur of the land they conquered. These landscapes were never true depictions of real-life images, rather depictions of how the city dwellers viewed their country as a “bright and happy world remote from turmoil” (page 20).
The Chinese were the first to view landscapes as a fundamental piece in art, because they believed it portrayed the emotions of a human being intertwined with the infinity of God. In addition, these Chinese artists tended to paint landscapes from an above view, so that the picture illustrated a sense of distance and vastness. On another note, Chase contrasts the landscape-painting of Italy, with that of the North. In Italy, landscapes showed nothing more than backgrounds for figures and stories. However, art from the North presented an equal significance in the painting’s setting and the figures within.
As Chase moves on to discuss landscape painting of medieval artists, she notes that the scenery begins to serve as an indication of the appraisal of God. Art from this time, as shown through many Flemish paintings, focuses on the beauty of every aspect of nature, demonstrating an appreciation of God’s creations and the recognition of God’s world. In addition, Chase includes a comparison of how artists of the 18th and 19th centuries went about landscape-painting – representing a contrast in the people’s interests and enthusiasm (or lack thereof) in exploring the countryside.
Eventually, great artists began to realize that art is not just an illustration of what one sees. Art is not meant to present to the viewer an image of a scene. Artists began to understand that art portrays much more: it allows the viewer to peak inside the artist’s soul, allowing him to view the artist’s emotions and perceptions. This resulted in a revolution where artists would use their paintings as a way of expressing ideas. For example, Chase uses the works of artists like Van Gogh and Cezanne to further prove this point.
By distinguishing the different ways artists of different eras and cultures painted and perceived landscape, Chase allows us to understand how important the role of an artist’s perception is in creating his art. To further this argument, Chase poses another problem artists are faced with: how to accurately depict figures in motion. Again, Chase uses an extensive analysis of how different artists attempted to achieve this.
The ancient Egyptians, just like in the case of landscape-painting, depicted figures in actions similarly to a map – by simply creating two dimensional profiles that lacked depth. However, to compensate for this, these artists would overlap the different figures of a given painting to suggest, at best, a slight sense of depth and movement. The Greek, on the other hand, used shadowing to indicate a third dimension. In addition, Chase saw that the 1st and 2nd century Italians drew figures using shading and light (page 40), in order to portray a more visible sense of depth. For example, these artists would shade certain areas of the figures so that one side was darker than the other, and then shadows near the darker areas.
Chase then identifies a third problem that artists, to this day, continue to struggle with: the problem of perspective. We already know that what we view from a distance appears smaller and less clear than what we see close up. Not only is it extremely difficult to depict that onto the minacity of a mere canvas, it is even more difficult to do so with accuracy. Throughout history, Chase points out, many artists used a “vanishing point” system, in which different part of the image would meet at a point in the “horizon,” in order to convey a certain sense of distance and dimension. While this system appears to be effective, much of the art of the ancient Romans and Greeks prove that this system of perspective is not always successful. Although it does “satisfy the casual glace” (page 42), it does not promise accuracy. The artists of the 15th and 16th centuries then attempted to formulate a fixed scientific scheme to solve this issue. However, this goal was later proven to be somewhat impossible, as there is no exact ay to illustrate a figure without compromising other aspects of the image (like distance and perspective). Chase then brings her argument to relate these attempts to that of today. Today, Chinese and Japanese artists use an oriental system called “isometric perspective,” where nothing comes together in a vanishing point, and the use of shadows is deemed unnecessary. Although this method in turn strips the viewer of a sense of accuracy, it has become an accepted style of portraying perspective by even West architects in drawings of buildings.
In summation, Chase’s argument gives the reader a taste of the complexity of the evolution of art. By presenting a few examples of some various methods artists throughout history have used to represent images in space, we are able to develop a greater understanding of the effect different cultures have on how an artist perceives a vision and portrays it.
