How (it’s painted) vs. What (is it about)?
Often there is a debate in art about technique vs. concept. Essentially, too academic of too conventional are phrases to imply that an artwork is just a technical piece, while an artwork that is concerned more with a certain idea or meaning is seen as a conceptual piece.
The irony is that in many art schools today, the study of coming up with new concepts and ideas in art has take center stage. The emphasis has shifted from the technical attributes of an artwork to the idea and the idea only. As a result, the conceptual piece has become academic and conventional.
Just as ironic is the notion that many older artworks seen today that may represent older conventions were, at the time of their creation, considered anything but traditional pieces. Take works by Velazquez, Brueghel, Titian, and Cezanne to name a few.
In this conversation on technique vs. concept, let’s say we were to call the concept the what as “what’s it about” and technique the how as in “how it came about” or “how is it painted”.
Until recently, in almost all the finest works of at, there is a balance of both the what and the how. A Bellini altarpiece, for example, needed, a great deal of concept and planning before the execution of the piece. Any religious piece for that matter, emphasizing the power and beauty of the baby Jesus or the mother Mary first begins as a conceptual piece–what is the most effective way to show holiness, to show divine power? Once the what is established, the how, as in the execution of the piece, comes in to play. The final effect and power of the piece is then determined by the concept of the image, (what it is) and the integrity of the execution of that image in communicating the concept, (how it was painted).
It should be mentioned that in many works of art, from the religious altarpiece, to the Dutch interior scene, to the Impressionist piece, there is already a pre-determined schema at play. The positioning and arranging of the image to be painted is often determined not by the individual artist by by what that particular type of artwork should look like. For example, a religious altarpiece should portray the Holy Mother and Baby Jesus together, dominant in the center above the viewer’s eye line, with saints flanking the two, lower in the piece to be more at eye level with the viewer. A Dutch interior scene tends to be painted on an umber or ochre ground, featuring an upper class Dutch home with its residents, a feeling of space, light from some apparent light source and many details and symbols suggesting the wealth of these inhabitants. An impressionist painting should be painted using a prismatic palette (red, blue, yellow and white, no black, and painted from life (or at least sketches from life).
Having these schemas firmly determined even before the first brushstroke is laid upon the canvas, what is left for the artist is just to paint it. In other words, how well the artist can portray the what as it has already been developed will determine the outcome of the piece. This is why Titian, Vermeer and Monet are so celebrated — using their vast know how, they painted the schema set before them to its ultimate level of execution.
Of course, many artists, especially from the early 20th century on, prefer not to adhere from a pre-determined schema. Take Pollack, Picasso, Rothko and Warhol for example, painters who all created their own schema, their own manner to paint, forging new ways to consider both the what and the how. Largely due to the fame and attention brought to these artists and others like them, the what painters could paint became completely wide open, as did how the painters could paint. In a way, how well one could paint became less an issue as how “uniquely” one could paint. Often painting according to any pre-determined schema or tradition is completely rejected in this scenario. Ultimately however, many found that there is only so many ways to paint in their own unique voice, so the emphasis shifted on what as opposed to the how.
We can find many contemporary paintings now where the piece is primarily interested in the message of the piece, what it’s about, and how it’s made is simply to get that point across.
All too often however, in attempting to show the what of the piece, he artist doesn’t have the means, the know how, to put the the image on to the canvas and the overall outcome is diminished. A great idea alone is not sufficient for a great piece of art.
Painting is a visual medium. If one wishes to show an idea, no matter how simple, an apple on a table, no matter how abstract (the coming of Christ), an artist must have the basic means to see and execute the image or ultimately it will not be effective. On the other hand, if the painting is painted well enough, it won’t matter what the subject is. In short, knowing what to paint is just one aspect of the the painting — more importantly, one has to know how to paint to actually do it effectively.
