On the loss of traditional technique... two hundred years ago.

[Anid Maro]

I've been following a few threads about the greatness of the old masters or the worst famous painters and so on. A common sentiment I've noticed is that during the 20th century we'd been robbed of traditional techniques by a relatively new abstract tradition which devalued classical values.

So with that in mind I thought this section from this book I happen to own "Techniques of the Great Masters of Art" was pretty interesting:
______________________________________

The loss of traditional technical knowledge

Delacroix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eug%C3%A8ne_Delacroix) was one among many nineteenth century artists who held David (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques-Louis_David) responsible not simply for the classical revival (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassicism) but, more importantly, for the complete rupture with the tradition of technical expertise. It is true that David discouraged his students from studying and learning from their eighteenth century Rococo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rococo) predecessors, but the breakdown in traditional painting methods was by then in any case virtually total.

David's affected disdain for technical tradition simply echoed the age-old split between the intellectual and manual aspects of art. The dissolution of traditional practical know-how had gone hand in hand with the rise of academic training in the seventeenth century. The craft-based guilds had fostered practical expertise, which was handed down by the apprenticeship based system from master to pupil. Apprentices had originally to learn all the skills of the trade before they began studying drawing and painting, and thus they were well versed in the chemistry of their materials.

In the early days of the Academies, painting techniques were similarly picked up from the master in whose atelier students worked. However, as the preparation of materials was taken out of the hands of trainees and taken over by professional merchants and specialists, there was no longer a need for this side of the trade to be learned, leaving artists with no practical knowledge of their materials. Nothing was introduced into the students' training to replace this lost knowledge, and awareness of the basic constituents and properties of their tools-in-trade was soon lost to artists.

This development is not surprising in view of the attitude of artists to the sordid practicalities which had long linked their profession to that of the common artisan. But not only was the knowledge of materials lost, techniques for handling them survived only to become sterile rules, meaningless and misunderstood by those who used them. Artists' problems were further complicated in the nineteenth century by the introduction of mass-production into the artists' materials trade, which transformed their equipment almost beyond recognition.
______________________________________

Of course, the techniques in question here (the preparation of materials) are quite different than those being discussed in the forums here (the application of materials). Nonetheless I thought it made an interesting comparison, our time isn't the first time artists had felt cheated by previous generations. I don't really have a question or premise to debate, I just thought this was interesting enough to be worth sharing with you all.

Also I can't help but be amused by the idea of Delacroix looking down at us as some of us look down at modern abstract artists. :)

[Derek the Usurper]

Everybody also forgets all the ancient Greek knowledge on art that was lost when the library of Alexandria was destroyed. Practically no Greek paintings exist anymore, so we have no clue what their methods were. Judging by their sculpture, it was likely pretty good.

Here are some other pre-dark ages realist techniques that were lost for almost a thousand years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fayum_mummy_portraits

Let's hope history doesn't repeat itself yet again.

[kev ferrara]

There are and were many different traditions of art. David, who is rather technically proficient it seems to me, is hardly to blame for the fact that very few of the greats ever wrote down what they knew, regardless of what era or tradition they were said to belong to by the taxonomic-minded scholars. Each great artist is his own tradition. Each tradition has its own information. Information is lost when the marketplace does not value its effects. And the values of a marketplace can change for a variety of reasons. Read "artists on art."

Is there some evidence that the Library at Alexandria contained greek art knowledge or actual Greek paintings? Or is this conjecture based on some speculative television show?

[Derek the Usurper]

I'm not implying there were any paintings at the library. The materials the Greeks used were subject to decay so there are none left, no matter where they were left lying. The destruction of the library is just one of the marks of the end of antiquity. It's reasonable to assume there were scrolls there on painting technique, as there were surely scrolls on aesthetics.

[Xeon_OND]

David's affected disdain for technical tradition simply echoed the age-old split between the intellectual and manual aspects of art. The dissolution of traditional practical know-how had gone hand in hand with the rise of academic training in the seventeenth century. The craft-based guilds had fostered practical expertise, which was handed down by the apprenticeship based system from master to pupil. Apprentices had originally to learn all the skills of the trade before they began studying drawing and painting, and thus they were well versed in the chemistry of their materials.

In the early days of the Academies, painting techniques were similarly picked up from the master in whose atelier students worked. However, as the preparation of materials was taken out of the hands of trainees and taken over by professional merchants and specialists, there was no longer a need for this side of the trade to be learned, leaving artists with no practical knowledge of their materials. Nothing was introduced into the students' training to replace this lost knowledge, and awareness of the basic constituents and properties of their tools-in-trade was soon lost to artists.
______________________________________:)
Wow, never knew you're an author! I went to Amazon.com and found this book (368 pages). It must be yours! :D

That said, I'm not too sure if learning all the ins and outs of the preparation of drawing / painting tools and materials will actually help you become a better artist.

For that 5 hours you spend to learn to prepare the materials etc., that same 5 hours can better spent on studying life and subjects or just practicing drawing.

[kev ferrara]

Derek... epistemology 101. We have no idea what is reasonable to assume was in the library when it was destroyed.

Xeon... Anid Maro's birthday is 1984. The book in question was written in 1996.

[Derek the Usurper]

Derek... epistemology 101. We have no idea what is reasonable to assume was in the library when it was destroyed.

Xeon... Anid Maro's birthday is 1984. The book in question was written in 1996.

It doesn't even matter if it was there. The point is that tons of information was destroyed everywhere toward the end of antiquity. The library at Alexandria is just one well known instance. You act as if I'm claiming that maps of Atlantis existed.

We have poetry and philosophy dialogs of Greeks mentioning ancient Greek panel paintings. If we are to assume that the Greeks were dumb enough to never write down their methods for painting, they had to at least pass the methodology down verbally, which means there was still information to lose. The mummy portrait paintings I linked to prove that people were working on a higher level than the flat looking Byzantine era art that would follow.

[dashinvaine]

I dare say the artists of the Renaissance wouldn't have snubbed mass-produced oil paint in tubes if it had been around. The likes of Titian were quick enough to embrace the newly fashionable and more expedient medium of oil in place of egg tempera, and few have looked back since. Prior to the nineteenth century artists usually still had to mix their own pigments, so they had to be part chemists, but there shouldn't bee too much mythology about the lost magic. Just having ready-made paint doesn't diminishes what can be done with it, or how one can understand its properties. It would be fatuous to argue that a sniper would be a better shot if he made his own bullets!

Modern chemistry and industrial production has also meant that we have more stable paints (in an infinitely wider range of colours). If they'd had modern paints in earlier times then many of their works would be in better shape now.

[dashinvaine]

The mummy portrait paintings I linked to prove that people were working on a higher level than the flat looking Byzantine era art that would follow.

The mummy portraits are good examples of original classical painting. The tradition didn't entirely die out, however, and Byzantine and Coptic art was more rooted in that classicism than is often appreiciated. Good examples from either end of the middle ages include some of the icons painted at the Monastery of St Catherine in Sinai, and some of the mosaics and murals surviving in Istanbul. Of the former, this is a good example... http://faroldeluz.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/jesus_sinai_icon.jpg

[kev ferrara]

It doesn't even matter if it was there. The point is that tons of information was destroyed everywhere toward the end of antiquity. The library at Alexandria is just one well known instance.

The point was specifically about the loss of aesthetic information, not information in general. Everybody knows that lots of information was lost.

We have poetry and philosophy dialogs of Greeks mentioning ancient Greek panel paintings. If we are to assume that the Greeks were dumb enough to never write down their methods for painting, they had to at least pass the methodology down verbally, which means there was still information to lose.

Lots and lots and lots of great artists, far better than the ancient greek realists painters were "dumb enough" not to write it down. Lots of artists speak through their art, and not through words, and don't give a crap for posterity or teaching. This is irrespective of the information which has been lost because it was once protected by guild or atelier style thinking, or was not passed on because of the sheer complexity of the information. Or was thrown out because somebody didn't understand it, or was thrown out to protect the magic secrets of some master, or was discarded as heretical, or ignored as passé or decadent or of the wrong political persuasion, or because people just like to clean up after someone dies and all that paper lying around can be used to start a nice roaring fire.

Nobody ever said there was no information to lose.

[Anid Maro]

Wow, never knew you're an author!

What?

So with that in mind I thought this section from my book

Oh... whoops. I meant "my book" as in I own a copy of it, not that I authored it. Sorry. :bashful:

That said, I'm not too sure if learning all the ins and outs of the preparation of drawing / painting tools and materials will actually help you become a better artist.

I also don't think that being able to prepare your own materials is essential to becoming a better artist, however being aware and knowledgeable of how the materials are prepared certainly would help.

If you know how they are prepared, even in a general sense, then you'll know what pigments can mix and what pigments cannot, why fat over lean works with oils, which colors are fugitive, et cetera. Even when talking about digital work, understanding pixels, file formats, storage methods, RGB vs. CMYK, and more will help immensely.

There are and were many different traditions of art. David, who is rather technically proficient it seems to me, is hardly to blame for the fact that very few of the greats ever wrote down what they knew...

The book I pulled the excerpt from goes on to discuss that as a possibility, but the authors clearly consider it an erroneous conclusion. I say that not as a contradiction of your post but to say that you are right in pointing out the bias of this book.

I also agree with your assertion that more knowledge has been lost to artists who did not write or teach or whatever than has been buried or destroyed by various movements (artistic or political). I found the excerpt interesting not so much because I think the evil Neoclassicist David spurned Rococo, but because at least some artists in the 1800s considered themselves cheated by a previous generation in much the same way some artists today feel cheated (*coughARC (http://www.artrenewal.org/)cough*).

I dare say the artists of the Renaissance wouldn't have snubbed mass-produced oil paint in tubes if it had been around. The likes of Titian were quick enough to embrace the newly fashionable and more expedient medium of oil in place of egg tempera, and few have looked back since.

I would not disagree. I am also sure they would've been quick to pick up synthetic pigments, certainly would beat grinding lapis lazuli to dust for some ultramarine blue.

However, I do think in such an alternate world that critics would point to Leonardo's deteriorating work (now deteriorating for use of fugitive pigments) and say "if only the techniques from the ancient masters were still with us today! Then Leonardo's paintings would be so much more stable. Damn you Titian!"

[Derek the Usurper]

The point was specifically about the loss of aesthetic information, not information in general. Everybody knows that lots of information was lost.



Lots and lots and lots of great artists, far better than the ancient greek realists painters were "dumb enough" not to write it down. Lots of artists speak through their art, and not through words, and don't give a crap for posterity or teaching. This is irrespective of the information which has been lost because it was once protected by guild or atelier style thinking, or was not passed on because of the sheer complexity of the information. Or was thrown out because somebody didn't understand it, or was thrown out to protect the magic secrets of some master, or was discarded as heretical, or ignored as passé or decadent or of the wrong political persuasion, or because people just like to clean up after someone dies and all that paper lying around can be used to start a nice roaring fire.

Nobody ever said there was no information to lose.

So now you're trying to tell me the point I was trying to make?

Your first issue was with knowledge, and I never claimed knowledge or facts dealing with the contents of the library. I only suggested that it was a likely conclusion based on the little evidence we have.

Greeks liked art. There was a huge library which supposedly had books on every subject relevant to Greek culture. One might reasonably conclude there were probably some books on art there.

It still doesn't matter if they were at the library specifically, because it would be foolish to assume that a book was never written in the entirety of Greek history on panel painting. We have a time period of good realist art, and then it takes a nose dive into flat Byzantine art. This suggests some art information and tradition was lost.

How can you even say that there are any artists who are "far better" than the ancient Greeks when we don't even have a single painting still in existence for comparison? Do you have some sort of vested interest in keeping the Greeks down? I don't understand why you are delving into such petty distinctions over a simple point.

[kev ferrara]

Everybody also forgets all the ancient Greek knowledge on art that was lost when the library of Alexandria was destroyed.

The meaning of the above quote is not debatable.

Not only don't we know what was in the library when it was destroyed, we also don't know if the library was in any way comprehensive. Thus, its burning cannot be said to necessarily coincide with the destruction of ancient aesthetic theory.

It would be foolish to assume a book was written on panel painting. It would be foolish to assume one wasn't. I would be happy if they found one however. My interest in such a book has no bearing on the actual likelihood of either its creation or discovery, however. There are endless examples of artistic expertise lost to history because it was not written down.

As far as we know, from all surviving examples, the Greeks did not produce Vermeer-like realism. The theory then (not the fact) is that the Greeks were more advanced in sculptural realism than 2-d realism. This theory is subject to change. Possibly, like some modernists and muralists, they believed that flat surfaces should remain flat and avoid illusionism... Also a theory.

Epistemology.

kev

[dashinvaine]

Given how closely Roman sculpture mimicked Greek, it's a reasonable presumption that Roman painting did likewise, and there are scattered survivals of Roman painting. There are also written accounts of famous classical painters and paintings, including Apelles, who lived during the 4th century BC. When he was vindicated of some maliciously-made accusation, he painted an allegorical scene called the Calumny of Apelles. Although the original was lost, a description survived in the writings of Lucien, from which Botticelli was able to recreate the image. This shows that the Renaissance painters were consciously trying to recreate the classical world, even if they had to use a large amount of imagination in order to do so.

A copy of another lost Apelles painting, a birth of Venus (or rather Venus Anadyomene) was more recently discovered in Pompeii, showing that Botticelli wasn't actually that far off. His flatter style (which now seems medieval) was more reminiscent of ancient art than the work of later Renaissance artists.

[Notophthalmus]

I vaguely recall an anecdote about the Italian masters and the introduction of oil paint. Of course most of them just said, "Hey, neat, a new medium," but at least one old painter felt that oil paint would ruin the painters' craft. His complaint was that painters could go back and correct mistakes instead of having to get everything right the first time, as with tempera and fresco.

Similarly, the druids were apparently opposed to writing information down, as it would discourage people from building strong memories. The druids and the crochety old master were right, of course, they just didn't realize how little we'd mind the tradeoffs.

[dashinvaine]

Sometimes Luddites have a point, but progress often demands sacrifices. Still obsolete ways seem to attract sentimental value, hence we get the heritage and conservation industries. Historical reenactment, too - people spending their spare time in the Bronze Age, for example.

[Notophthalmus]

That's the nice thing about looking back after all the progress has taken place- you can appreciate the highlights of the past without all the infectious disease, backbreaking labor, and violent raids from your neighboring town!