Visual Culture by Howells and Negreiros Chapter 2: Form

Moving on from the what (the subject) to the how (the manner), this is the role of form in visual texts.

For Panofsky, subject and meaning were pretty much the same thing. This works for many images, but not for modern art, such as the work of Jackson Pollock.

H&N then describe the theories of Roger Fry. Born in nineteenth century, Fry became convinced over a number of years after developing a love for post impressionist paintings, that there was more to art than the simple imitation of reality. (I would add here that there simply has to be for photography ever to be considered art). We had reached the point in painting where realism had no further to go ( to a degree, therefore, the theory of what we see in visual culture was following the trend in art away from realism, there was a need to understand what Monet et al were all about).

'If imitation is the sole purpose of the graphic arts, it is surprising that the works of such arts are ever looked upon as more than curiosities or ingenious toys', he said.

Fry said people have two types of life: actual and imaginative. A piece of art is to be considered 'as an expression of emotions regarded as an end in themselves.'

This was way too far for contemporary thought. His exhibition of Manet and Post-Impressionists in London created scorn and anger. The problem was Fry's analysis permitted, encouraged even, anyone, to understand art. It was no longer an elitist occupation to understand the subject (the reactionary nature of the art establishment is a recurrent theme) as even the maid had 'a certain sensibility' allowing her to appreciate a Matisse.

We can explain this by reference to the form of the piece of art. H&N then make an analogy with music, pointing out that often (eg in Nessun Dorma) words are not an integral part of our emotional reaction to the work, but rather the form of the tune, the melody. I would summarise this simply by saying the whole is more than the sum of the parts. In this way, painting might be viewed as 'music for the eyes'.

Fry devised an order to his thoughts. We need order (to avoid confusion) and variety (to avoid boredom). Artists arouse emotions by the 'emotional elements of design':

•        Rhythmn of the line - the line is what delineates objects

•        Mass - way in which bulk is communicated

•        Space - way in which size is communicated, and proportion

•        Light and shade - alters feelings to subject

•        Colour - direct emotional effect

I can see here the roots of part of The Photographer's Eye and much of The Art of Photography. Come back to the point that, in this analysis, photography can only be about form, because reality is a given.

H&N then use these guidelines to analyze Cezanne's Still Life with Milk Jug and Fruit.

Even more important, form is the only way to make sense of modern art such as that of Pollock or Rothko, to understand, respectively, the anger and depression depicted by their work. We must use form because there is no subject; Panofsky's  iconographical scheme cannot work because he aligns subject matter and meaning, if there is no subject there is no meaning, yet all artwork has SOME  meaning.

H&N conclude that the answer to form (Fry) vs content (Panofsky) depends on the actual work of art under consideration. Panofsky's approach works for Renaissance artists, Fry's for Post-Impressionism.

Ultimately, the Formalists have helped us understand the nature of art itself. The action works of Pollock and Rothko can be understood as well as the paintings of Rembrandt if we realize they are all to a degree self-portraits. If we see something of ourselves in them, the artist's work is done.