For posterity's sake, in case W changes his signature, here it is:
![Image](http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/Whistler55/Whistler_Crepuscule.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_SickertWalter Sickert had been tangentially implicated in the Ripper crimes as early as the 1970s, with the release of the now infamous "Royal Conspiracy" theory. But it wasn't until the early 1990s, with the release of Jean Overton Fuller's Sickert and the Ripper Crimes, that the peculiar artist became a Ripper suspect in his own right. More recently, Patricia Cornwell has claimed to have found DNA evidence linking Sickert to at least one "Ripper letter".
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in the History of Art. Which is a pompous way of saying that I wrote a 300-page summary of all the books I read in five years.Whistler wrote: I will create a proper Whistler thread when I have the time. But I remind everyone that Berhael is a doctor of fine arts (or something to that effect; she’ll have to provide the proper title) whose expertise will certainly surpass my own.
Whistler's painting - which now hangs in the National Gallery in Washington - shows a woman dressed in a white gown. She is standing in front of a white curtain, and is holding a lily. Her face is quite dark: she probably did not use the fashionable Bloom of Youth [a cosmetic product made with lead white that, literally, poisoned long-time users], which was lucky for her. Her hair is long and red, in a shade beloved by Whistler's Pre-Raphaelite contemporaries. The effect of all the white is dazzling, but as you fix your eyes on the painting, the snow blindness begins to have a curious effect. Two patches of colour begin to emerge from the canvas, almost as if they are two separate concepts framed in a foggy dream. There is the woman's face, of course, but then rather improbably at her feet there is wolf's or bear's head that seems to be part of an animal-skin rug. Why would Whistler have chosen to place it there?
The painting was first shown in London in 1862. At first it was called The Woman in White, but the writer Wilkie Collins had just published a ghost novel with that title - which confused everyone. The artist pretended to despise the confusion, but it was in retrospect a canny marketing move: in the two years since it had appeared, the novel had already precipitated an extraordinary fashion for white dresses, white handbags, white lilies and even what were called 'white' waltzes. This painting, then, was sure to find a buyer.
A decade later, after the first title had caused a storm of complaints from people claiming the model did not remotely resemble Collins' heroine [book purists - LOL!], Whistler decided to rename it Symphony in White No. 1: The White Girl. But the painting was jinxed, and he merely attracted more peppery comments from the London art world. The critic Philip Gilbert Hamerton complained that it was not precisely a symphony in white, since anyone could see that it also included yellow, brown, blue, red and green. 'Does he then', asked Whistler, 'believe that a Symphony in F contains no other note, but shall be a continued repetition of F, F, F...? Fool.'
Would Whistler then have thought all discussion about art irrelevant? Sounds to me like that would be the case.Whistler wrote:Whistler would call this discussion irrelevant.
For Whistler, art was composition and color...or in this case, composition alone. It doesn't matter what this or that thing translates into in the real world. What matters is its significance in the composition. Whether it's a grave (it isn't) or a boat or a buffalo, Whistler wouldn't care as long as it suited his purpose.
That approach is called, if I'm not mistaken, "formalism", and is the basis for most abstract art. It's a valid form of art, since the eye (or rather, the brain) can be trained, or naturally predisposed, to admire aesthetically pleasing shapes. Artists say that a work of art "works" or it doesn't; that often means that the composition or arrangement hangs together in such a way that it is pleasing, or coherent, or both things.truehobbit wrote: I mean, if I don't know what it is, then its only purpose is to bring a certain geometrical shape into the composition at this point.
Now, it may be that this really is all what Whistler wanted, but for me it is a bit too basic, I must say.
Putting shapes where they should be to achieve an effect is the beginning of art for me, not the end.
The end is only approached if there is a deeper reason (not using the word "meaning" on purpose here) for bringing in a necessary element in just the way in which it is brought in and no other.
Yes. Foreground, middle ground, background.(Does English language art history use the word middle-ground? Ber, maybe? It might be a Germanism.)
Ah, I think I understand a bit better now, Whistler - thanks!The notion of "art for art's sake" is reasonable: art should need no justification; its beauty should be enough. But to apply this philosophy to all art, now and forever, is nonsense. It's a dead end, artistically and intellectually. People do have things to say about politics, religion, history and whatever. Art is a powerful medium for saying those things, and it is absurd to expect that artists should not make use of it.
Whistler's philosophy arose as a reaction to an over-emphasis, in art, on storytelling and moralizing. In its day, it made perfect sense. But it needs to be kept in its historical context to make much sense today.
Ber, thanks - "formalism" is a term I wasn't familiar with!That approach is called, if I'm not mistaken, "formalism", and is the basis for most abstract art. It's a valid form of art, since the eye (or rather, the brain) can be trained, or naturally predisposed, to admire aesthetically pleasing shapes. Artists say that a work of art "works" or it doesn't; that often means that the composition or arrangement hangs together in such a way that it is pleasing, or coherent, or both things.