Landscape and the Sublime

1. The enlightenment was an intellectual movement during the 18th century, in its simplest sense it was the creation not necessarily of a new framework of ideas but rather a framework or set of values amongst men. These values were base on themselves(human nature), society and nature its self. These new values challenged the traditional concepts and values which in the past were predominantly based around Christianity.

2. Sublime is derived from the latin word Sublimis which literally translates to; looking up from under the lintel, high, lofty, elevated, exalted. it is the quality of vast greatness or magnitude in many senses of the word, whether physical, moral, intellectual, metaphysical, aesthetic, spiritual or artistic. In particular it tends to be referred to as a greatness in which nothing else can be compared.

3. The concept of the sublime came out in the enlightenment period as the artists of the time had a new set of values. One being the new found recognition of the beauty in nature. Seeing the beauty British writers, taking the 'GrandTour' in the 17th and 18th centuries, first used the sublime to describe objects of nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublime_(philosophy)

4. Richard Misrach's photography is typically of landscapes or seascapes and usually includes people or man made objects. He studies the landscape and man’s complex relationship to it. The people or objects in his photographs are tiny compared to the vast sea or landscapes.

5. Augustus Earle, Viviano Codazz, Max Podstolski

6. Misrach's photography gives me a god like feeling or upper being, looking down on people as small an insignificant compared to the vast magnitude of nature. The people seem very vulnerable and powerless to the forces of nature. The pieces impart a dark frame of mind upon me. I think of the world and mankinds correlation as foolish and ignorant. Evidence of this ignorance is broadcast to the world every day on the News. This news showing the force of nature so easily overpowering cities and towns and taking the lives of people, just as easily as we humans take from nature everyday, so too nature just as easily takes from us.

Although Misarch's pieces are very aesthetically pleasing, bright, beautiful and tranquil. I can not shake the feeling of depression as I look down on (from what seems the eyes of god) unworthy and ungrateful humans. The feeling of depression is drawn from my own guilt as I know I too am guilty of the above crimes against nature.

7.

Damien Hirst

The work of Damien Hirst relates to the artist and the economic system of the renaissance period. Originally part of the YBA (young British artists) he led the movement of conceptual art in Britain in the early 90s.

The artists commonly used shock tactics and had fresh new ideas . Hirst particularly pushed away from the traditional art of Britain in the 90s and his exhibition, 'the physical impossibility of death in the eyes of someone living' was exemplary and similar to the acts to the Renaissance artist of the time. Comparably pushing away and thinking for themselves as to what art is? In the same way the role of the painter and the sculpture of the Renaissance period, (traditionally thought of in the lower social role of the crafts person) wanted their profession to be recognised as a member of the liberal arts, Damien Hirst and the YBA wanted their art to be recognized as a true artists movement in Britain at the time.


His work 'For The Love of God' a platinum cast of a human skull encrusted with 8,601 flawless diamonds, including a pear-shaped pink diamond located in the forehead. Costing £14 million to produce, it is an interesting look into modern mercantilism. The idea of mercantilism was for a nation to increase imports and collect precious metals in order to best serve wealth and power in their given country. I find that Hirst's persona is somewhat arrogant and flamboyant, a prime example of his flamboyancy is his skull, the most costliest piece of art in history, it relates to the idea of precious metals being collected for ones nation. Relating to the saying 'no man is an island' which clearly doesn't apply to Hirst. I believe Hirst makes the statement that man is his own nation in particular the rich. Collecting and spending and growing as we all constantly are as individuals, some more so than others. As his critics have commented on; "work of art? He is not an artist. It's all commercial value to him. Is this just another way for rich people to deal with their time and excess of money. If Paris Hilton or Ali G say they did it, instead of Hirst, would you call that art? or just another publicity stunt?"
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5721243092885760241&postID=8586704498988537630


I believe that Hirst makes clever observations on society with His Art, 'For the Love of God' in particular commenting on the social status of individuals in today's society.