Hans Gombrich: The Story of Art

I love Gombrich's opening quote: "There is no such thing as Art, only artists." In one of the later appendices, Gombrich retracts this powerful statment, supposing that when first written it gave people license to mislabel rubbish as Art. The story of art (as opposed to Art) is the story of reactions, artists solving and inventing problems of representation in response to the approaches of their forbears. The current dilemma, as Gombrich sees it, lies in the lack of problems. The counterculture, rebellious nature of art has lost its force, since the very disgust a piece elicits may serve to qualify it as Art in the minds of some. Art criticism, therefore, has ground to a halt, as anything can go and the repellent or clumsy aspects of a piece may simply be included in the artist's overall vision. "Where can art go from here?" he seems to ask.

But it is revealling to analyze Gombrich's summary of art on a basic level. The fundamental questions of art are, "What to represent?" and "How to represent it?" The former is, in my mind the more interesting of the two, as the latter can be seen as a function of technique and materials. But what to paint/sculpt/defecate is a fascinating question. I don't mean to say that the the oscillation between religious and secular topics is interesting. Rather, artists have been asking themselves whether to paint what one knows or what one sees (or, more recently, what one feels) since the very beginning. Raphael vs. DaVinci, Carraci vs. Carravaggio, Reynolds vs. Gainsborough, Turner vs. Constable, Monet et al vs. Cezanne, and other fascinating comparisons highlight this fundamental question. Does one focus on the visual effect of seeing and faithfulness to nature, or on the ideal concepts of beauty and symbolism? For that matter, why not, as per Kandinsky, paint something completely internal?

If this is the fundamental question of art, it is by no means solved. The solution would, of course, be a synthesis of the two methods, some way of representation that conveys the truth of something both according to the eye and according to the mind. Bewailing the state of art, albeit warranted when a cross in a jar of urine is haute couture, is unwarranted in the larger scheme. Such a synthesis has not been reached (and cannot be), so art will continue to evolve and fascinate the public.