Can We Accurately and honestly describe "Reality" When Representing Art
In our reading, Patterns of Intention, by Michael Baxandall, the main idea expressed is the difficulty in accurately describing what we see in a picture of art. Baxandall is exploring the pitfalls that arise when art historians attempt to describe or explain what is seen in a picture. It is an in-depth explanation of why an art historian should strive for objectivity, whenever possible, in their attempts at reproducing art through description and explanation; how we reproduce art through words.
Objectivity in art, or more specifically, to objectively describe and explain a piece of art is to base one’s interpretation solely on fact, that which is measurable and quantifiable. This, according to Baxandall, is the ideal way to describe art because it is the least obtrusive on the mind of the recipient. Subjectivity, on the other hand, is a perspective based on pure emotion, which causes interference when trying to accurately describe or explain. Subjectivity to an art historian is detrimental, according to Baxandall, in that it is already subject to great interpretation from the start. The recipient then takes this information and attempts to create an accurate picture, already having to battle with his or her own subjectivity. In short, an objective description will give the recipient a crisper, clearer interpretation, from which to make their own inferences, which should in turn be objective in nature.
The problem that then arises, that is if we conclude that an art historian should be objective, is whether or not objectivity is possible. While objectivity is the goal, it is seldom achieved, according to Baxandall. Apparently, in the history of art history, art historians have used words that are too ambiguous, phrases that are too riddled. This is a keen observation in and of itself by Baxandall because it is the perspective of the recipient. After all, one of the prime concerns of any good art historian should be his or her audience. Are they really seeing exactly what you are trying to get them to see?
Baxandall is very demanding of the art historian in this reading. However, he raises very interesting points. The importance and significance of how we represent art as art historians should be scientific, methodical, and calculated. The power of the spoken and written word highly come into play in the interpretation, description, and representation of art. Words, how they are used, and their consequent effect on the recipient are extremely important to the art historian, if the goal is to accurately and precisely represent works of art. He categorizes three kinds of descriptive words, which are cause words, comparison words, and effect words. Then, he gives examples of these words, so as to gain a better understating of his definition of descriptive words and a brief explanation of the effects that these words have on a recipient’s interpretation.
The ostensivity of critical response was another of Baxandall’s points. When something is hard to define, an ostensive definition can be useful because it can convey the meaning of a term with an example. Examples can aid in one’s interpretation of a representation because the mind already has a solid idea from which to draw a conclusion. Baxandall, again makes specific reference to the power in the usage of words and its significance in an art historian’s critical descriptions of art. He talks about how words, “in art critical description one is using the terms not absolutely; one is using them in tandem with the object, the instance. Moreover, one is using them not informatively but demonstratively”.
Critical description of art is tricky, for lack of a better word. Sometimes, words that we believe are descriptive are in actuality deceptive and elusive, unintentionally straying the recipient away from an accurate representation. Baxandall explains, “In fact, the words and concepts one may wish to handle as a mediating ‘description’ of the picture are not in any normal sense descriptive”. Just as paint to a canvas is art, the word to a paper is equally art. A solid, critical description of a work of art is, in and of itself, a work of art achieved through the medium of selective words and phrases.
The most solid evidence of Baxandall's claim came in the very beginning of the reading, when he used an excerpt from a description written by fourth-century Greek Libanius. After reading the description by Libanius, I was under the impression that it was being used as a good example of descriptive writing. As I read on, I later learned that it was actually being used to illustrate points of poor critical description. It opened my eyes two just how specific and meticulous Baxandall is suggesting that art historians should be. Although he credits Libanius’ description by saying it “enables (the recipient) to visualize the picture clearly and vividly…) he later points out where the description lacked and categorically stated, “It would not enable us to reproduce the picture”. Making this small observation helped me extrapolate from this reading the mission of the historian when attempting to critically describe art. This mission is to be as objective as possible in representing and describing the work of art, so as to enable another artist to reproduce something close to or exactly like the subject being described.
In conclusion, the main theme that I extrapolate from our reading is that the art historian has a responsibility in representing art. A responsibility that is not easy fulfill, but one that Baxandall goes to great lengths to outline. It is the responsibility of accurately representing what was previously presented as art, to someone as an art historian. The goal of the art historian is to be as crisply objective as possible, so as to describe a “reality” and not one’s own fantastical perspective of a reality. It is fair to say that Christ is the most represented figure, ever, in the history of man. Baxandall’s usage of a picture of Christ to illustrate the importance and significance of accurate description helped me understand the author’s main point. Also noted was the application of ostensivity when critically responding, or describing, a work of art, and how it can be a powerful weapon in the arsenal of an art historian when the objective is to accurately, objectively, and honestly describing a significant, living event that really took place in history, which is art.