History Of The Image Lecture

Today we had a lecture on a 20,000 year, non linear history of the image starting by looking at the Lascaux cave paintings in France. There isn't much that is known factually about these caves or the paintings in them, but they are thought to be around 17,300 years old and consist mainly of images of large animals that are known to have lived in that area at that time. Although some people believe that they are simply records of what happened during the course of peoples days, there is also another theory that these images were some kind of attempt to communicate with a higher power through the use of ritualistic symbols and signs. This would make some sense since when you look at the paintings although some are very linear and simple, others are done using a series of small dots and seem to portray nothing in particular. Its theorised that maybe they were attempts through mystic ritual to better their hunting attempts in future. 

What I found interesting was that these images can be almost compared to images made by Rothko or Pollock, in the way that their process seems to be chaotic and have no meaning to it (in the case of the cave paintings this is because we have no historical reference to that time) but in actual fact they all have a system and an ideology behind them. For example in Hans Namuths film 'Jackson Pollock at work in his studio' from 1950, we can see that Pollock works out what he wants to put where on the canvas before starting, where he rolls the canvas out on the floor so that he can closer to it. He even walks along and over the canvas whilst he paints almost so that he can further partake in the image being made. What links these two very different images being made is that the could both be described as being made in a state of surrealist Automatism, which is the act of letting go of the conscious thought making process and letting the unconscious mind have free reign with what is being created. Both of these processes look otherworldly and subsequently throw the viewer into an emotive mindset while observing them as this unconscious thought process makes these images all the more powerful. 

Both of these images are successful in their own right, but Pollock was a massive commercial success, even being employed by the CIA to create some works to express to the rest of the world the freedom of America through the free art style. But is art that is more organically made in this kind way automatically 'better art'? For instance, when Stalin came to power in the late 1920's, he banned any type of avaunt guard modern art simply because he thought it was more elitist, pretentious and that people couldn't understand it so what was the point in it? He preferred only social realist styles which portrayed Russia as something very different to what it was, however, by banning this 'pretentious' art and insisting on realism, you could argue that he wasn't trying to oppress anyone, but simply to make art easier to understand for everyone. However through Americas campaign to make surrealism seem like the beacon of freedom and 'high-brow' society, some people now always associate realist styles with being out of touch and possibly more 'low-brow' styles. 

I would contemplate whether, just because something has a bit more of a thought out process behind it and is done in a very linear way, if it makes the experience of seeing it first hand any less magical. Having had a very linear approach in my own work (now trying to train myself out of it), I find it a little insulting to think that the only 'good art' can be free, unconscious expressions on paper. Just because you mark it out with pencil before hand, does it make the intention any less free?

I've gone off on a bit of a tangent on the subject but mainly in addition to discussing this idea, we also talked about the power of symbols and images in popular culture and how overall, image making can be a very powerful political, societal and cultural tool, so as creators we need to learn how to use it diplomatically and creatively to inform our practice.