Your Thoughts about Orientalism

[Tom Edgerton]

Thanks, everyone, for your contributions so far. I think this is an interesting and important topic.

It's hard for me to accept that "to paint one, you have to be one." I thinks it's a legitimate thing for an artist to record their reactions and impressions of another culture. Sharon's right, it has to be done with some intellect and sensitivity driving it, but to say that I can't paint cowboys because I'm not one is pretty hard for me to swallow. I don't, but I'd like to be able to if I chose, without being accused of cultural theft. As always, the art is a record of an interaction with the subject, not a literal depiction of the subject--even in photography. So it's as much about the artist as the subject.

One of my favorite painters is JW Waterhouse. He obviously wasn't there for the historic and allegorical events that he depicted, so if the above litmus test were to be applied, a lot of very good paintings would not have been painted. But I also think my appreciation of him stems from my looking past the content to the technique. A lot of the pre-Raphaelite and Victorian schmaltz makes my skin crawl--it's just that with Waterhouse, it's not so over the top, as with some of his contemporaries like Alma-Tadema, Bouguereau (please, let's don't go there again), and Rosetti.

We all agree that sexism, racism and cultural exploitation are bad. But to discern another artist's motives and intent is very hard to do, and what should be an obvious discussion becomes immediately very nuanced and fuzzy.

Sharon and I may never agree about a particular artist in this regard, but she's raised some very compelling and important points, maybe the most important being that, once in a while, it's a good idea to question one's own motives and point of view when portraying a given theme.

But upon further reflection, even this is not easy and clear cut. A case in point would be Burt Silverman's paintings of female exotic dancers--a theme he has revisited off and on throughout his career. The paintings have been castigated by some as exploitive because of their straightforward, unromanticized point of view. But his explanation of their evolution has been that he has been working out his own reaction to the women and how they collide with both his private inner world and our overall cultural attitudes about sex. Mr. Silverman would be the first to admit that he's not entirely clear and never has been about the pull this subject has for him. Doesn't an artist need to have the latitude to work without necessarily understanding exactly what his or her motives are--thus the art becomes the mechanism for "working things out?"

But to complicate the discussion further, at times some of the Silverman "Dancer" paintings have been subsequently sold, so the use to which they have been put has changed based on the needs of the artist at the moment. Does this make them exploitive?

Anyone?

[Enzie Shahmiri]

It is fair to say that artists have a tendency to paint, that which has left an impression on them. As Carolyn points out, travel impressions are just another record of such experiences and I do not see the work of any artists, who has truthfully painted that what he has experienced first hand as exploitation.

As to allegorical or historical paintings, Tom has made a good point that most work was done after the fact. But if one calls himself a historical painter, then technique alone does not suffice, after all without detailed research any presentation of historical events could be misleading and fraught with error.

Carolyn, your argument about filling a void is an interesting one. When I visited Singapore my first impression was of disappointment. I was not expecting to see a street filled with Designer Stores and Starbucks. In contrast, when traveling to Bali, that experience gave me a sense of being in a far away land amongst people with an entirely different way of live. Seeing people go about their business in settings that is more in terms with their heritage is more appealing to me. I am not against progress, but

[Elizabeth Schott]

This is interesting Enzie.

Trying to read through and give everyone equal weight, I think everyone has touched on the reasons being...

We might say that the older guys were merely documenting their travels, but I would also think they became enamored by the people they found to be so different, it might have been the color of their costumes or the starkness of the surroundings, whatever grabbed them it was different.

Sharon you love to do dancers, did Degas paint dancers because of his passion for them (yes) did he continue to do it because it became financial lucrative? I am guessing yes.

One can feel the difference as Tom mentioned in the painting of a cowboy and the painting of a cowboy to have painted a cowboy, there is a feeling. But I really think contemporary artist still discover a passion for a subject and put it too financial use, I don't think it lessens the art, when as Tom referenced you can get the feel of the subject.

Does that make sense?

What else could have led this fella from Cincinnati, OH to paint this:

[I]Frank Duveneck, Guard of the Harem, Cincinnati Art Museum

[Allan Rahbek]

Beth,
This "Oriental" painting is a good example on what I was advocating. It has the abstract qualities that makes it interesting as a work of art.

If you don

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Artistic freedom as far as technique goes changes the dynamics of a painting. If the work is abstract then the subject matter tends to become secondary, with the technique taking center stage. When a work is realistic in nature, it's technique is in par with the subject. Both now acquire equal attention and that changes the dynamics between representation and content.

[Tom Edgerton]

By the way, the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute museum in Williamstown, MA has published a nice and not-too-expensive volume on Orientalism. Here's the link:

http://clarkart.stores.yahoo.net/nobdreamwicp.html

--Tom

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Thank you so much Tom! I will look it up.