Just like politics, criticism towards art is filled by words which reportedly have different implications to a number of different people at different times and places. Different contemporary scholars of art and artists have tried to establish the real connection between the modernization of art and the object of art. Research shows that in the early sixties, an American artist by the name Mel Bochner laments that the formula was that art is equals to the object. However in this case, it is reported that the word object has different meaning and reference from what it initially meant for a fellow artist and scholar by the name Picasso. For this man Picasso, the word meant the source object encompassed in the visual world which reportedly served as a point of departure for the inventions of art. Picasso is well remembered for his strongly held notion which went that there was no abstract art and that there is no way you can start virtually, you must always start from something, then afterwards as per your own will you can therefore choose to remove all traces of reality. With this in mind, he believes that there is no danger then and supports this saying that the initial object and beginning would have left an indelible mark which will be seen by anyone who cares to look.
With this thoughts of many different artists and art scholars not been in concurrence at various points, this was an evidence of a great problem. This great problem was a question of what is the object rather than what the object is. This really seems confusing but it is a fact stated just as it was then. It was a question of where rather than what, confusion building around whether it something out there in existence, something in the mind or is it something invisible having no direct cause effect to physical reality. Therefore in considering the issue of art from its naturalism straight down to its conceptualization, we will take on firstly of the object as that part of the external world used to serve as the point of departure for the work of art as the subject matter.
Then after having this in place, we will therefore gradually drift and think of the object as the work of art itself. Here we will think it up as a tangible thing among things which is alive in itself, if at all we could be allowed to borrow from Picasso's well worn phrase. Perhaps we can even bring into play a less familiar statement by Picasso directed to Francoise Gilot; the statement implied that one of the fundamental points about cubism is that not only did we try to displace it from reality but reality was no longer in the object, instead it was in the painting. We finally encounter the widely held contemporary logic that art object has sunk to the level of a commodity and it is to be spurned around by artists, therefore the object is deemed as dead.
Throughout all the various differences in proper definition of the object, there runs a hint of this ramification showcasing the object as if signifying the purpose. A further variant on the use of this word is no longer relevant to present day studies into arts, but should at least be mentioned as a matter of fact thing. We can decide to view the entire issue around modern art from a vantage point of view. Here we will take the vantage point as the artists' attitude towards the object. A deep examination into this will be of use to shed some light on the larger part of the problem if not the whole part of how the modern artists choose to bring together man d interweave art and reality and ultimately of what constitutes the reality for him or on his part. Broad outlines of such investigations, are reportedly sketched in and in the follow up explanations, there is a detailed coverage of the problem engulfing art and the object. Going straight to the point, we will look up into various major strains of emphasis which wind in and out of the history of art straight from long time down into modernism.
In the nature paintings of the late 19th century, it is evident that one can detect three major emphases according to research, this are reported to appear and reappear in numerous guises up to the present. The first emphasis is the faithful representation of the visual appearance of the object implying illusionistic representation or what a scholar by the name Duchamp referred to as retinal art. A second emphasis seeks to reveal and underscore the materials and process of painting; this is defined as art in art. Thirdly the emphasis evident shows exaggeration and departure from the verisimilitude to express or rather better ideas. A quick overlook into the above analysis, shows as clearly that there are two things in the painter, these two things according to the above context are definitely the eye and the brain. Logically it is evident that the two must cooperate and that one must tentatively work for the development of the other and vice versa but definitely as a painter of the eye through the outlook on neutrality of the brain through what is known as the logic of organized sensations which provides the means of expression. Studies again warn that nothing at all should make us to completely give in to nature; we should at no time be too submissive to it. It advices that one should be a master of his/her own model and preferably master of his/her own means of expression.
You should get deep down to the heart of what is before you and move on to continue expressing your very self as logical as is possible. An artist by the name Cezanne says that vision, idea, creativity and feelings of a person are conjoined. He shows proper distinction of his source of objects so that one can exactly locate the very spot where he set up his easel in painting in each of his numerous studies. For instance, one can recognize a particular pine tree after it is severally repeated in different pictures at the same time, his works of painting, are as much objects just as the mountain and tree are but the painted object and the object painted vie each other for dominance.
The tension building up from this conflict adds sense to pictorial dynamism, literally hundreds of opposing forces are successfully balanced cat an equilibrium but Cézanne's equilibrium is definitely not the same as that for other scholars for instance Kennet. It is therefore evident that most of the 19th century nature paintings are more and more passive in their total structure and also their total detail. This is evidently not the case with nature paintings of modern years or recent years research shows that the characteristics of paintings in recent years is directly the opposite of that of paintings of the century 19th.
Kensett's idyllic mountains are reportedly very great works which makes one feel no tension, there are no treacherous currents in his rivers and lakes it is evident that there is a smooth flow of everything from the onset with ideas. It is known that his love for nature was nm ore peaceful compared to that of Cezanne. Cezanne was reportedly never at harmony with nature art and his very own self. Therefore we cannot possibly deny the fact that the three have to concur at any one time.