I have here, my favorite Rembrandt copy yet. But I am compelled to ask, as you likely are, why the obsession with copying Rembrandt? Why the obsession with copying in general? Certainly, I learn tremendous amounts by copying these paintings, but after a certain point....I do continue learning each time I copy - even if I copy the same painting, each one reveals something new, something I could not quite grasp before. But, somehow this is not the entirety of why I do this. There's something else, something almost nameless that drives me to continue this. I think it has something to do with a search for meaning - an effort to reconstruct something integral to the human soul, which was cast aside in the post-modern era. Deconstruction has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Let us try to give this a name.
I think the closest explanation that I have found is a short story by Jorge Luis Borges entitled Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote. It can be found in his book Labyrinths, from which I'll quote a small excerpt. He discusses the hypothetical reasoning behind the hypothetical author Menard's rewriting Don Quixote.
"There is no exercise of the intellect which is not, in the final analysis, useless. A philosophical doctrine begins as a plausible description of the universe; with the passage of years it becomes a mere chapter-if not a paragraph or a name-in the history of philosophy. In literature, this eventual caducity is even more notorious. The Quixote-Menard told me-was above all, an entertaining book; now it is the occasion for patriotic toasts, grammatical insolence and obscene de luxe editions. Fame is a form of incomprehension, perhaps the worst."
He goes on to say, more solidly than I, that
"Cervantes' text and Menard's are verbally identical, but the second is almost infinitely richer. (More ambiguous, his detractors will say, but ambiguity is richness.)"
The conclusion of the story puts forth the premise that "deliberate anachronism" and "erroneous attribution" enrich the text. Because the second (the copy) has the context of the original and the added context of it's recent re-creation giving it another dimension of depth and interpretability.
So, in analogy, perhaps I am testing this theory in paint. The "deliberate anachronism" of smearing dirt and oil onto pieces of cloth in an age when I could use a multitude of different and contemporary methods, seems to hold some importance to me. The anachronism of the act, the anachronism of the subject, the anachronism of the technique - for me almost poetry, but why?
Considering this, does the copy become an artistic or philosophical statement in it's own right, or is it nothing more than mimesis?
7 comments:
I share your wonders.
I often rely on music in these cases.
A "cover" song has to be really outstanding in order for it to rise above the original. That is a challenge worth pursuing. Can you infuse a quality piece of work with more and various qualities? What is the difference between the same song sung night after night around the camp fire and one Grammy winning recorded moment? Loads. Not better, just different. Apples and oranges really. The mistake is to think that making a copy of something is less-or-more valuable than making something truly original. There are lessons in both sides of the forest.
As far as I'm concerned: we should get to know all the trees. Imitation and "the New" both can be brilliant. And yet both are most often soulless.
I've been working on a Vermeer copy for years. Off and on that is. And, well, its four foot tall which sends it into a lot of guess work on my part, nonetheless, I find that to pay soooo much attention to someone else's finely tuned chops, is only a compliment and honorable.
I've also found myself in a "space" that compels me to either toss off the shackles of history and "just do" or to congeal all of my historical understanding into one focused and decisive paint stroke.
I see two paths of meditation.
1) Shut every thing out: Focus on the candle, focus on your breathing, focus on your ever emptying thoughts
2) Focus on your breathing, focus on the leaves in the trees, focus on the world spinning, focus on everything imaginable
Focusing in or out.
Pop or Jazz.
Same thing.
It is all about breathing.
Quote the Masters (and the Missters), but listen to your heart as well.
Paint on.
Thank you very much, that's a very insightful analysis. The inner and the outer- Art is like a belly button.
It brings the necessary element of spiritualism into the process. Which I find essential, each time I paint it is a communion (as you say) with the self or with the other.
Think of it mechanically, from the outside. The copy is only a copy of how many layers you choose to exactly replicate. Some of those are impossible, for example, time, air quality, tools, temperature, environment, all of these things that you know influence the work in some way. In this case you copy to understand, the layers of the work, why not experiment with the manipulation of some of those layers, or perhaps the subject. Originality is a general term for a very onion-esque thing. Say you take a red lens and a blue lens and look through them at a pencil. The pencil is obviously purple, but if you look at your hand it is also purple. The tricks are the same but the subject is different. It is ignorant to say that in the visual arts, that the visual dimension of the work does not matter. However, it does seem to work differently. Symbols, like words, operate horizontally and vertically. Atmospheres require depth. And I'm not sure if anything I have written makes sense.
"Think of it mechanically, from the outside. The copy is only a copy of how many layers you choose to exactly replicate. Some of those are impossible, for example, time, air quality, tools, temperature, environment, all of these things that you know influence the work in some way."
I believe I follow you. The content is constructed by means of various layers of influence: cultural context, temporal context, physical context, methodology, underlying structure, subject depicted, object depicted, subjectivity of the viewer, etc...
Some of these, as you say, cannot be reproduced: temporal, and physical context - or even defined: subjectivity of the viewer. So these elements differ automatically, and if these change does that necessitate originality?
If not, how many must change before it is considered original?
I may use the same blue and red lenses as Rembrandt, but fix them on a different object - retaining the same methodology and subject. Does this constitute originality in and of itself? Perhaps it's original but mediocre unless the object holds much greater weight. It does seem more exciting if the subject and the object change. But if the methodology is recognizable , when does it negate the interest of the subject-object continuum.
What I think I'm getting at is where, precisely is the line or originality? And is originality predicated upon whether the piece is brilliant or mediocre?
Isn't a 30% change legally original?
I wonder how old you are Richard? Or, if I have become lazy by asking these questions less frequently?
I think the important thing to remember is to keep doing your best, without considering "originality".
Insincerity even shines through originality.
Steven,
I am 26. But if maturity means no longer questioning things, then I hope I never achieve it.
I'm not so much concerned with legality, but with ideology.
Yes, I am an idealist. But I believe idealism is for youth - you have the rest of your life to compromise. If you don't start off with idealism, what will you have left when you're older?
I agree, insincerity does shine through. This is something I find in most of the art I see here in New York. It's tragic.
Hello Richard,
Aside from being a good copy it's a good painting.
I had a painting teacher, Frank Mason who used to say when you copy a masterwork try to paint it and not just copy it note for note as they say.
Very nice indeed.
Post a Comment