In Chapter seven van Leeuwen talks about how paintings can change so much from the original to the copied and reproduced versions. It brings me back to when I worked in a consignment/ thrift/ antique store. Working in such a place taught me what a good reproduction and a bad reproduction looked like. van Leeuwen exemplifies this, “in an original painting by Mondrian the lines are, in close-up, not straight, but overpainted and the colour of the various rectangles is modulated rather than plain and flat. Postcards and other reproductions of the same painting make the lines appear straight, remove the overpainting and present flat, unmodulated colour” (van Leeuwen, p. 221). I will never forget my boss pointing out why a reproduction can be spotted. She would pull out old books with pictures of the original paintings and then compare them to the reproductions clients would bring us. Some were extremely close to the original but others were so far off, it would actually make you upset. Reproductions can be such sad representations of what the painting once looked like. I find it interesting that for years we have looked at reproductions of artwork that, “reinforce and reproduce a particular (incorrect) version of Mondrian and a particular (ideological) version of abstract painting” (van Leeuwen, p. 221). We all grew up in our art classes looking at reproductions of famous artwork; who knows what the original artist wanted us to see and feel when looking at their art. I found the way van Leeuwen talked about artwork and brushstrokes to be like someone's handwriting, very powerful. Your handwriting is so personal and it can identify you. Someone can look at a note and immediately know that you wrote it. Original paintings are the same way; you can look at an original and know who painted it. If a painting has been photographed and reproduced it loses that touch of uniqueness it once had and makes it less personal and desirable.
It is so important to teach younger generations the importance of artwork; parents and teachers should express that a powerful piece of artwork can leave a very strong impression on a person. Children should understand the importance of original artwork; that it’s an artists “John Hancock” and that reproductions don’t do the originals any justice. Green’s model talks about the critical approach to literacy, “using literary practice which recognizes the socially constructed nature of knowledge and literary practices. Asking critical questions and constructing Alternative perspectives” (GREEN, 1). After a piece of work has been reproduced over and over it begins to loose it’s original quality. Our society begins to construct a new version of the painting and new meaning behind it. After seeing the art change and develop into something different, we begin to ask critical questions and create alternate perspectives on the work.
After reading this chapter it almost makes me sad; like credit is not being given to the artists who created such beautiful artwork, years and years ago. Our society develops things to fill a need and in the process, unique and beautiful art is changed and seen differently. The artists original brushstrokes are no longer their signature. My hope is that educators and art enthusiasts would keep original artwork in sight and explain to children it’s importance.
References:
Green. (n.d.). Graphical representation of GREEN's approach to literacy. Retrieved January 21, 2015, from https://moodle.esc.edu/mod/page/view.php? id=821667
Kress, G., & Van leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading Images: The Grammar Of Visual Design (2nd ed., p. 312). Routledge.
Two reproduced paintings of, Poppies by Monet- Look at the difference...
http://www.myartprints.co.uk/a/claude-monet/poppies-near-argenteuil-2.html
http://www.allartnews.com/poppy-field-in-argenteuil-by-monet-named-most-popular-oil-painting-for-mothers-day-2011/
I enjoyed this post…but it made me sad too :(
ReplyDeleteWhat I liked was how you deconstructed a painting, so that in my mind, I began to see the copy of the copy of the copy, until it was some totally watered-down version of a bright, illustrious original. I think that says a lot about our society, where we do the same things with music, stories and just about everything else.
Students in my 6th grade Humanities class are always shocked when I show them, for example, an original version of Gilgamesh The Hero (a Mesopotamian classic) that was written on clay tables thousands of years ago, and a modern children's version. They all prefer - obviously - the one from their time period because it's faster and more visual than the original. It's hard for them to appreciate the original. Meanwhile, it's the story on clay tablets that spawned the imitations.