The galloping question was the question of how horses ran, whether with all legs off the ground at once, or in rotation. Eadweard Muybridge believed in the "unsupported transit" of horses, that all four hooves left the ground at the same time during a gallop. In order to prove this, Muybridge developed a shutter speed that allowed for a better quality of pictures of motion. Using this new development, Muybridge proved "unsupported transit."
In the 1800s many realist painters, such as dutch painter, Charles Rochussen, depicted horses in gallop. Since this was before the galloping question was proved one way or another, many painters depicted the horses with two hooves off the ground and two hooves on the ground. The success of the photograph discredited the validity of these paintings. Since these painters were no longer realistic, their value was also reduced.
This moment is apocalyptic, especially to these painters and their works of art, because it marks the turning point in their value. It changed the meaning and importance of their paintings.
If anyone wants to see an image of the series of photos taken by Muybridge, you can go here: http://www.hafif.org/imaj/serdarsabri/muybridge-race-horse-gallop.jpg
ReplyDeleteI had never heard of Eadweard Muybridge, but this short description of him was fascinating.
However, I don't think we can go so far as saying that Muybridge's findings ultimately devalued the works of many realist painters. Rather, his findings served to disprove their attempt to uncover what is real. As for value and importance, I think that's in the eye of the beholder. Certainly, the meaning of the paintings did not change with these new findings; a painting of a horse is still a painting of a horse. Whatever can be interpreted from that painting is debatable regardless of how realistic the realistic painting may be.
I do understand what you're getting at, though. Major experimental findings of all kinds can create small apocalypses in our daily lives. About a month after 9/11, when conspiracy theorists made claims about the Bush administration planning the 9/11 attacks themselves, that certainly created a mini-apocalyptic panic and loss of trust in the government.
However, getting back to the topic at hand: I think Muybridge's findings can create a small apocalypse for not only the painters but the observers as well. When perceiving one of these realistic paintings when we are fully aware of the error that they depict, we are allowed a sort of insight into what the painter perceived and what the painter thought to be real.
Samantha, I put the image above your post, and I reformatted it; it is useful to have those paragraph breaks so that your points are really clear.
ReplyDeleteYes, Maria is right to point out that the small apocalypse here goes in many directions at once: toward the paintings (perhaps perceptually more than in a value sense), toward the observers, and also, as Benjamin might point out, at the aesthetic objects themselves: the painting and the photograph(s) 'travel' differently, allow for different modes of reception and consumption.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhen encompassing these thoughts of "change in perspective" towards art, I find it interesting to compare the different perspectives through out history which art may be viewed in.
ReplyDeleteI'll be the first to say that I know very little about art but when learning how certain cultures have historically thought, it becomes interesting how our view of art can change. At the same time, to better understand a piece, it becomes imperative almost to understand the time period in which it was created. For example, a work painted in the Romantic Era gives us an understanding of why the artist painted in this style and it becomes a reflection of the time period in which they lived in.
We talked in class about "apocalypses bringing out other apocalypses" and I think history changing how art is created is a good example of that.
To elaborate, this is so because History influences Art in its style and interpretations. Romantic era art will differ in style from Classical era art for example. However, someone in The Modern Age will take in mind the concepts and views thought in the Romantic Age when interpreting a Romantic piece and see how both the style and interpretations differ from era to era. History allows an interpreter in the Modern Age to take into consideration concepts and style forms of the Romantic Age when considering a piece. In turn, the interpreter will also integrate Modern Age thinking when viewing A Romantic Era painting. Thus, historical thinking working with art to better understand what an artist was thinking.