Fried's Objecthood...

Wow, were actually reading about art! Adding in some formal analysis and we’ve got an art class back. I was/am a little lost because we’re not so direct this week, like subjectivity or semiotics, but I’m presuming that Fried interest is primarily in the relationship from viewer to the object being viewed. He says all paintings face their beholder. Expressing his view that because the artist expressed himself through the painting, it is now in concrete form, therefore more real than before. If I am getting his point straight, then I can concur with this theory, and one could say not for all art, but I think it’s true. No matter the object of reproduction in an artistic way, the artists is still going to make very specific markings only distinct to that person. He jumps right into the paintings within the first paragraph, and does a well job at explaining them in a not so dry tone. Painted between 1848-1850, he provides briefly all summaries of four different paintings, but focuses his analysis on only one, Burial at Ornan’s. Perceived by generations of historians, about the overall stylistic character of the Burial, all have emphasized its effects of brute material, both as representation and as artifact.

Saying that there is an aggressive presence of the personages, due to the aggressive presence of the paint. Also stating that the people in the paintings are nothing, but elements on the canvas. This essay was well written except for the fact that I didn’t get a clear sense what Fried was trying to prove. I felt he had a huge sales pitch to throughout there, unclear about his reference to Manet, Seurat, and Picasso following Courbet’s initiative. I’m sorry I just felt a little bored reading through this piece, even though it was much clearer than some of the other works, maybe it’s realism that puts me to sleep, I hope our class discussion can boast my interests.