Główna zawartość
Historia sztuki- program rozszerzony
Kurs: Historia sztuki- program rozszerzony > Rozdział 1
Lekcja 2: Dlaczego sztuka jest ważna- Dlaczego patrzymy na sztukę? - film z polskimi napisami
- Czy sztuka musi być piękna? - "Stary gitarzysta" Pabla Picassa
- Jak odbiór sztuki może pomóc Ci analizować rzeczywistość? - film z polskimi napisami
- Moc patrzenia
- Opisywanie tego, co widzisz: Rzeźba (Henry Moore, Postać półleżąca)
© 2023 Khan AcademyWarunki użytkowaniapolitykę prywatnościInformacja o plikach cookie
Czy sztuka musi być piękna? - "Stary gitarzysta" Pabla Picassa
Beth i Steven zadają sobie pytanie, „czy sztuka musi być piękna?”, przyglądając się dziełu Pabla Picassa, „Stary gitarzysta”, przełom 1903 i 1904 roku, malarstwo olejne, 122,9 × 82,6 cm (Art Institute of Chicago, © 2018 Estate of Pablo Picasso). Aby dowiedzieć się, jak włączyć automatyczne tłumaczenie napisów, zajrzyj do https://youtu.be/BPIOpuuhlak
Opowiadają: dr Beth Harris i dr Steven Zucker. Stworzone przez: Beth Harris, Steven Zucker i Smarthistory.
Chcesz dołączyć do dyskusji?
Na razie brak głosów w dyskusji
Transkrypcja filmu video
(upbeat piano music) - [Steven] I think often
we make the assumption that art is beautiful,
but is that required? Must art be beautiful? - [Beth] We also think, well this is ugly, so this can't be art. As an art historian,
it's become clear to me that there are many
different ideas of beauty, that every culture has its ideas, over time ideas of beauty change. - [Steven] And over my lifetime, what I consider to be
beautiful has changed. That does suggest that
there is not a fixed notion of what is beautiful. - [Beth] Nevertheless,
most of us would agree that a rose is beautiful
and cockroach is ugly. - [Steven] And that's
referencing an 18th century German philosopher who's name is Kant, who spent a lot of time
thinking about how we define what is beautiful. What philosophers call
the study of aesthetics. - [Beth] And there's been a
lot of science about the fact that human beings seeing
attracted to forms that are symmetrical, forms
that have certain kinds of proportions and so
it does seem like maybe there's a biological
truth about what is beauty for human beings. - [Steven] And as a historian,
I'm interested in the way that notions of beauty
have changed over time. The ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras thought that beauty was rooted in kind of a universal harmony and that when we produced
something that reflected those harmonies we saw
that thing as beautiful. And then there's the
issue of who determines what is beautiful. I think in the 21st century I
think we're very comfortable with the idea that beauty is
something that's determined by one's experience
that is deeply personal, but that was not always the case. - [Beth] Well, we live in
an era where the individual is paramount, old forms of authority that would have told us what
is beautiful don't exist in the same way for us. In the 19th century and
hundreds of years before that, there were art academies that
decided what was beautiful. - [Steven] And it's
interesting to think about how the academies, the
royal academies in Europe determined on what was beautiful. - [Beth] And that relied on
ancient Greek and Roman culture. - [Steven] And so artists
focused on understanding a kind of ideal proportion
of the human body especially. That became of paramount concern. - [Beth] The academies promoted
a concept of the ideal. - [Steven] There was a
standard that artists tried to achieve. - [Beth] And all of art education was geared toward teaching one to be able to achieve that kind of beauty. - [Steven] But that must
have been so oppressive. It must have been suffocating for artists. - [Beth] It's interesting to look back to the mid 19th century
and artists like Courbet and art criticism by Baudelaire, both of whom promoted an idea of beauty that was specific to the time one lived. That is a beauty that was
contingent and not eternal so that the modern streets of the city which everyone would normally
define back then as ugly, could be seen as beautiful. - [Steven] And it's not incidental that that writer and that
artist lived at a moment when the authority of the
monarch was being challenged. - [Beth] And challenging
a single idea of beauty was really important for artists. - [Steven] We're standing
in the third-floor galleries of the Art Institute of Chicago, looking at a really famous painting by Pablo Picasso. It's the Old Guitarist
from his Blue Period. We're seeing the work of a young artist and although from our
position in the 21st century, it might be relatively easy to see the painting as beautiful. For someone looking at this painting when it was new in 1903, 1904, it would have been radically ugly and I can say with
certainty because of the way that the artist is
deforming the human body. - [Beth] And it's not as though
Picasso was the first artist at the end of the 19th century
to do that but he is doing it to an extreme degree here. - [Steven] We see a man in rags. His eye is closed, a
reference to his blindness, but he's actively playing a guitar. - [Beth] His neck is inclined in a way which is impossible but which
is also very expressive. - [Steven] There have been
many times throughout history when artists have distorted the body for particular purposes. It's clear that Picasso is looking back to the great Spanish painter, El Greco, who attenuated and distorted bodies to create a heightened
sense of the spiritual. - [Beth] We are looking at a figure who's very close to us, there's no space that recedes behind him. We have these flat planes of color and the guitar itself is
almost also completely frontal and that neck is inclined
down toward the guitar as though his whole body is absorbed in listening to the
music that he's playing. This figure, in his
solitude, is finding comfort in his art. - [Steven] And is having
an aesthetic experience, engaged in that music
that is almost identical to the aesthetic experience that I have when I stand
in front of this painting. And so Picasso is doing
something extraordinary. He's creating a bridge between
the melancholic experience within this canvas and the
experience that I'm having. - [Beth] And in some ways,
Picasso gives us a painting where we can't see either. The figure's enclosed within
this rectangular shape. This is a figure who's in his own world. - [Steven] And so Picasso
is creating this, I think, universal experience and because of that, he heightens my empathy for
this man, for his plight, and he does that in a
number of different ways. He does it through his
distortion of the body. He does it through the use of blues and browns and greens and blacks. And he does it through the
proximity but also he produces a sense of empathy because
of the evident poverty of this figure. - [Beth] This is a man who feels exposed to the elements of the world and yet those elements
don't enter this painting. - [Steven] So let's go back to this issue of what beauty is and whether or not this
painting is, in fact, ugly. I would argue that the empathy
that the artist creates is itself a kind of beauty and perhaps is actually a
more profound form of beauty than easy beauty, than an image of a rose. - [Beth] Another image of
a blind man playing guitar might now have that same effect so the formal elements together
with the subject matter are what move us. (upbeat music)