3 ms·

Of course he chose the pigment deliberately. The question is if he chose it because of its visual effect (and price and chemical properties) or because of some

by goto11 7y ago

Of course he chose the pigment deliberately. The question is if he chose it because of its visual effect (and price and chemical properties) or because of some symbolic meaning in the history of the pigment. Choosing a pigment for its color is not the same as choosing it "just for kicks". The entire purpose of a pigment is to create color!

keiferski 7y ago
Clearly the most likely answer is "for both reasons", as I explained in the parent comment. He had an interest in Western art, the work itself incorporates Western techniques, the pigment was rare and associated with (Western) modernity, and its particular qualities made it suited for his visual goals. It would not make much sense to note that he made all of these decisions to highlight a changing Japan / new influences from the West, but say that he only chose Prussian blue because it looked nice. This is not really an uncommon occurrence; artists choose materials for their visual appearance and symbolic meaning all the time. Klimt's use of gold leaf is a similar example. Klimt's use of gold was inspired by a trip he had made to Italy in 1903. When he visited Ravenna he saw the Byzantine mosaics in the Church of San Vitale. For Klimt, the flatness of the mosaics and their lack of perspective and depth only enhanced their golden brilliance, and he started to make unprecedented use of gold and silver leaf in his own work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kiss_(Klimt) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kiss_(Klimt) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Klimt#Golden_phase_and_critical_success https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Klimt#Golden_phase_and_...
- toyg 7y ago
  I think the point of the parent poster is that artists (like Klimt) often choose their materials because they want to achieve a certain effect, not because they want to signal a certain concept or relationship to a specific situation. Klimt did not choose that color and material to signal a return to Byzantium mores or some particular link to the Eastern Italian coast, but because it suited his imagery - that had classic influences but was unmistakably something else and new. Similarly, I agree that linking Hokusai’s use of a new blue to a particular will of representing a changing Japanese society, is a big overreach without other corroborating evidence. It makes much more sense that he was simply an artist who was still at the peak of his powers and enjoyed innovating into his late years. It’s like aged architects embracing new materials when they become available - not because they represent this or that, but simply because they work better and open new possibilities.

by goto11 7y ago

keiferski 7y ago

Clearly the most likely answer is "for both reasons", as I explained in the parent comment. He had an interest in Western art, the work itself incorporates Western techniques, the pigment was rare and associated with (Western) modernity, and its particular qualities made it suited for his visual goals. It would not make much sense to note that he made all of these decisions to highlight a changing Japan / new influences from the West, but say that he only chose Prussian blue because it looked nice. This is not really an uncommon occurrence; artists choose materials for their visual appearance and symbolic meaning all the time. Klimt's use of gold leaf is a similar example. Klimt's use of gold was inspired by a trip he had made to Italy in 1903. When he visited Ravenna he saw the Byzantine mosaics in the Church of San Vitale. For Klimt, the flatness of the mosaics and their lack of perspective and depth only enhanced their golden brilliance, and he started to make unprecedented use of gold and silver leaf in his own work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kiss_(Klimt) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kiss_(Klimt) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Klimt#Golden_phase_and_critical_success https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Klimt#Golden_phase_and_...

toyg 7y ago
I think the point of the parent poster is that artists (like Klimt) often choose their materials because they want to achieve a certain effect, not because they want to signal a certain concept or relationship to a specific situation. Klimt did not choose that color and material to signal a return to Byzantium mores or some particular link to the Eastern Italian coast, but because it suited his imagery - that had classic influences but was unmistakably something else and new. Similarly, I agree that linking Hokusai’s use of a new blue to a particular will of representing a changing Japanese society, is a big overreach without other corroborating evidence. It makes much more sense that he was simply an artist who was still at the peak of his powers and enjoyed innovating into his late years. It’s like aged architects embracing new materials when they become available - not because they represent this or that, but simply because they work better and open new possibilities.