Exercise - Thinking about the canon

What is the main problem with the idea of a body of great works that other artists try to emulate?
Does the idea of a canon have any relevance today?
Reflect on the quote from WHA(p.139) - Does this imply that idealisation of the human form is in some way dangerous? Why do you think this might be?
'The canon is an important concept but one that can be quite hard to get your head round '(Understanding Art 1 - Western Art. pg.17. OCA). Having spent the past few weeks trying to respond to this exercise, more and more this quote seems to hold true - for me anyway.


There appear to be a number of issues with the idea of  'a body of great works' the first of which is, who decides what great art is and by what authority.
Is it the church deciding the style and content of religious paintings and sculptures, or the ruling elite wanting to use art as propaganda or facilitating the re-writing of history?

However, having a 'body of great works' does allow for a starting point for a 'rebelion' against the perceived wisdom of what 'great art ' is - would we have had the Impressionists if it were not for the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, created in 1684 by Jean-Baptiste Colbert to give the French state direct control over art and artists.
The Impressionists had 'no intention of spending hour after hour and month after month copying the masterpieces of the past' (The Impressionists, 2001 published by Mondadori and in the UK by Collins 2002)


Even when the 'revoloution' had taken place there was in some quarters a reluctance to accept a deviation from the 'norm'

For example in November 1910 Roger Fry put on an exhibition titled Manet and the Post-Impressionists, showing works by Manet, Cezanne, Gauguin, Van Gough and Matisse. 'The show was going to be an eye-opener for an insular audience that had been brought up on the realism of the classical tradition'(pg.84 A Crisis of Brilliance by David Boyd Haycock - Old Street Publishing 2009)

That view was not far from the mark as it received scathing reviews with one reviewer, Ross, stating that the exhibition revealed 'a wide spread plot to destroy the whole fabric of European painting' (pg 85 a Crisis of Brilliance)

However having a 'conon' can form a touch stone for artists and there are a number of 'modern' artists who have in some way returned to the 'classical style'

Weeping Woman Picasso1937
Oil on canvas
Tate

For example the painting Weeping Woman can be viewed as a typical painting by Picasso. 'This painting employees a complex visual language developed from cubism which Picasso had invented with Georges Braque two decades earlier. Through cubism he discovered a means of interrogating form by depicting the subject from more than one view point. The Weeping Woman is shown simultaneously from the front and in profile. This endows the figure with a sculptural presence, and also suggests that time has elapsed as she turns her head away from the viewer. The fragmentation and reconstruction of the face in sharp angular planes also contributes to an image of intense emotional pain.' (Gallery notes Tate Liverpool October 2011)

Seated Women in a Chemise Picasso 1923.
Oil on canvas
Tate

Compare the Weeping Woman (1937) to  the Seated Women in a Chemise,(1923) two vastly different pictures, however, ' along side his most radical experiments with the figure during his cubist period, Picasso also developed an interest in classical art, to which he returned throughout his career, particularly in his drawings. The stylised facial features and drapery of the seated figure recall the elegant composure of fifth-century Greek sculpture, yet the massiveness of the Mediterranean woman's limbs and her swarthy complexion are at odds with the classical ideal of semi-clad bathers. This is typical of Picasso's love of incongruity and his mixing of historical and modern references in his images.'

 (Gallery notes Tate Liverpool October 2011)

In relation to the relevance of the 'canon' today I think that to understand how 'schools and movements developed' there is a need to be aware of how art has developed together with the influences that contributed to different styles, for example what influenced the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (PRB) and what were they rebelling against, if anything.

How were Spencer, Nash, Gertler, Nevinson and Carrington (described by Henry Tonks at the Slade School of Art as the school's  last 'crisis of brilliance') influenced by the PRB and previous art movements. 

Given that the 'classical canon' has has an immense influence upon the development of art understanding it's contribution is essential but to be restricted by it would limit creativity in the arts.

In relation to Fry's 1910 exhibition, Haycock (pg 86) staes that 'the hostile response of the older critics and public must be set not just against the ongoing revolution in the arts, but also against the wider contexts of contemporary Britain. Socially and politically speaking these were years of crisis and anxiety'.

I would suggest that a similar view hold true today. The  influence of  the 'canon' should not be seen as only influencing art and architecture but has a direct link on how people see themselves in today's modern world. Foe example the whole issue of body image, the removal of 'imperfections', the millions spent of physical enhancements are as a result of a view expounded as to what is 'beautiful'. People have to be the 'right shape and in proportion', glossy magazines promote the 'perfect image' and in striving for such an ideal the  cosmetic industry is making a fortune.

There are victims in this, as can be seen by the rise in teenagers and adults with eating disorder - I know the issue of eating disorders is extremely complex but for a significant number the primary issue is a perception of body image.

Art is not something that stands outside of society but is very much part of it and can have a significant influence how society sees itself.