As I mentioned yesterday, Berger notes that there are six genres of storytelling about paintings (while allowing that there are others and that various mixtures can be made)
Here they are: *Formalist *iconographic *connoisseurial *genetic: "includes all historical and archival reconstructions of the motives that condition the production, stylistic influences, theme, and function" *conservational *contextual : "broader accounts of the social, political ambiance, for example, the apparatus of patronage, the place of painters in the occupational structure, and influences of discourses on practice." ............................. But what has he left out? technological - in the limited sense of the use of specific tools and materials provenance - including how the painting helps tell the story of those who have collected it biographical - how the painting helps tell the story of the painter market history - including the record of its value at auction, and how that compares with similar lots ...and most importantly: aesthetic - how the painting gives pleasure We may note that only a few of these are relevant to the objects that Michael mentioned yesterday: the toaster, Philips screwdriver, and mechanism of a watch, which explains why Berger's discursive method and presentation of multiple opinions, is less appropriate to them. And if you want the discuss a painting as you would the workings of watch, you are going to get very frustrated very quickly. (Perhaps that's why nobody here really wants to read/discuss Berger - or actually -- any other book about art criticism and theory) To summarize those genres of storytelling that Berger has left out -- with the exception of tools/materials, they all involve the subjective experience - of the artist, collector,or viewer. His omission reflects that critical moment in European cultural history, c. 1900, when art appreciation was put on a scientific basis - or at least was supposed to be. (he does mention "connoisseurial", but he doesn't explain it, so I assume he's applying that definition recently given by the director of the Rembrandt Research Project - i.e. to authenticate the hand of the artist) It's also interesting to note the sentence with which he began Chapter 4: "A painting ought to change as you look at it, and as you think, talk, and write about it. The story it tells will never be more than part of the stories you, and others, tell about it." I would say exactly the reverse. YOU ought to change as you look at a painting -- and the story it tells will always be more than whatever stories you, and others, can tell about it. ____________________________________________________________ Diet Help Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=RGQRLBPH5t8Kz_keXchyfwAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=
