if any of you guys are artistically / philosisophically inclined; please read what i have done of this essay so far and see if it makes any sense, at all...
comments / advice is welcomed
it's for a really interesting unit about the backs of paintings, check it out yo
10. Discuss the way in which backs of paintings articulate thematic tensions between appearance and reality in paintings and films.
We live in a world of appearances. Throughout human existence, theoreticians and philosophers have attempted to explain the connection (if one exists) between the physical appearance of things, and their metaphysical reality. I might be tempted to define the table I sit at (while writing this essay) with inherent characteristics; such as its polished timber frame, smooth grey surface (minus the pen marks and charcoal stains), and rectangular shape. But by defining the reality of the table, it is easy to forget that it is only its' reality in so far as it is a mind's perception of it. We soon realise that if viewed from another perfective or at a different time of day, or by another person (wearing glasses), the same table will be perceived as having different, even opposing qualities. The tables' characteristics are just sensations, light waves passing through our retinas wiring signals to our brains, processing the physical appearance of the object. What have we learned about the reality of the table? The answer, disconcertingly, is close to nothing.
The problem of differentiating between the appearance and reality of objects, living things, and conscious minds, has been explored as far back as Aristotle and Plato's first forays into the matter over 2 millennia ago. These greatly influential thinkers postulated that everything we observe within the universe, (animals, plants, tables...) is merely a shadow of the objects' true and perfect embodiment. We cannot experience these perfect forms directly they said, instead only through the shadows or (appearances) they imprint on our universe. Most recent discoveries in quantum mechanics has suggested that there might not be a reality at all, that at the deepest levels of particle interactions nothing can be measured or known for certain. This thought is bewildering, if not frightening. The situation was playfully summarised by quantum physicist Richard Feynman, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics".
If this is a discussion about art, why should we bother ourselves with the perplexing conundrum of Metaphysics? Because a case could be made that artists (forget philosophers and scientists), have been the best at finding answers to these questions, consciously or not. We tend to think of paintings as one-sided commodities, taking interest only in the side decorated by the artist. But a painting (both front and back), is itself a direct manifestation of the concept of appearance and reality. The back of a painting* is so abstract that it can be likened to the reality we have been searching for - hidden behind the artist's painted appearance. And just as the reverse side of a painting** can represent a balance between appearance and reality, its depiction within the frame of a painting or film can be used as a thematic device by artist or film-maker responsible. 'Las Meninas', 'Six Degrees of Seperation' and 'Citizen Kane' are all manifestations of this form of representation, and will each be pivotal towards interpreting the thematic articulation of this abstract concept.
Las Meninas (The Maids of Honour) is arguably Velazquez's greatest masterpiece, and agreeably one of the most important paintings of all time. The elaborately detailed and multi-layered composition of the scene depicted in Las Meninas is rivalled only by the theoretic and historic dispute surrounding it. For centuries, critics have reached a unanimous disagreement as to what the painting truly represents. For historic academics such as Svetlana Alpers, Las Meninas showcases Velazquez' effort to elevate painting from mechanical craft to a respected liberal art form. Post-modernist intelligentsia led by Michell Foucalt see the painting as a representation of representation itself, a meta-painting bridging the gap between Classical and Modernist thought. Other critics and thinkers fit somewhere between these two extremes, attempting to instil some clarity to the impenetrable painting. The mysterious aura within the painting challenges the viewer to differentiate between its appearances and realities. Dawson Carr aptly stated that it is precisely the uncertainties within Las Meninas that defines the paintings' ultimate meaning; that it's levels of uncertainty "[...]suggest that art, and life, are an illusion."
The most striking feature of Las Meninas is the large canvas which dominates the left side of the painting, its back facing the viewer. Velazquez himself is depicted a short distance behind the painting, poised intermittently between applying brush to canvas, sharing a momentary glance with the viewer. The resulting encounter forms a snapshot in time, which illustrates Velazquez in the act of coming and going; between the visibility and invisibility marked by the giant canvas. Reinforcing this tension between the states of appearance and disappearance is Don José Nieto Velázquez who stands, right knee bent and one hand on the door-handle, at the far end of the room. The open doorway marks the painting's proper vanishing point, directing our gaze through to the mysterious depths of the visible stairway, and beyond. Both Velázquez's are captured on the edge of movement, two pendulums frozen mid-swing. The dynamic oscillation between the visible and the invisible, appearance and reality, continues infinitely, argues Foucalt. Las Meninas is a self-portrait of a portrait - but a portrait of what, is less certain.
But what can be unanimously agreed on is the identities of the figures represented in the scene; the infanta Margarita being the immediate focal point of the painting surrounded by her colourful entourage. A less popular theory is that the Velazquez depicted at work, is painting the Infanta's portrait, but no real evidence supports this reading. The key to solving Las Meninas' enigma is in the mirror hanging on the far wall, which contains a reflection of the royal couple; King Philip IV and Queen Mariana. This reflection does two things; it projects the real King Philip IV and Queen Mariana outside of the picture plane to occupy our position as the viewers, who are in turn being painted by Velazquez on the large reverse canvas. The result is a complex network of gazes, which has the royal couple double as viewers and subjects.
Interestingly, Velazquez treated the King and Queen's reflection in the mirror with a foggier, out-of-focus style in contrast with the realism of the other characters. Could this choice of representation be Velazquez's articulation of an illusion, or unreality surrounding the royal couple. In a 1983 paper, Snyder and Cohen discovered that by carefully tracing the line of sight from the mirror to observer, the reflection in the mirror is not directly that of the King and Queen in person, instead a portion of Velazquez's reverse portrait. Perceived either way, the mirror uncouples any certainty within the painting. The initial comfort of reality constructed by Velazquez dissolves as the scene is closer examined, to the point in which we begin to question what is illusion, and what is reality.
Similar themes of appearance and reality can be examined within the 1993 film 'Six Degrees of Seperation' directed by Fred Schepisi. The entire film symbolically hinges on a double-sided Kandinsky painting owned by savvy New York art dealers and couple, Flan and Ouisa Kittrige.
... to be continued
