Comparison: Two Works of Art

The Content

        What is art? One could give a basic definition that "works of art demonstrate a combination of imagination, skill, training, and observation on the part of their human creator" (Stokstad, 1) a definition given by "Art: A Brief History." The other side of this is that art is whatever we believe is art. Imogen Cunningham's "Two Callas" (1929) (figure 2) is a clear example of that.

(Figure 2)

Figure 2 is a gelatin-silver print, a photograph. A lot of people would disagree and say "No, this is not art. There is no imagination, skill, or training in clicking a button." A lot of people would say "Yes, it is art. There is skill, imagination, and training in this photograph." "Art: A Brief History" states that Cunningham captures "the artistic character" (Stokstad, 3) not necessarily through "exacting detail recorded" (Stokstad, 3) but rather "the compositional choices and dramatic lighting controlled" (Stokstad, 3) by herself. This means that the play of light is what is creative and supposed to be interpreted by the audience. 

    Although more recently, art has expanded to different interpretations. The same thing has happened in the past. The "social, political, religious, and economic contexts" (Stokstad, XV) of art were not interpreted the right way sometimes. An example of this would be how "Power Figure Nkisi Nkonde" from the Kongo culture (c. 19th CE) (Stokstad, 441) was buried by those who didn't know the social context of the figure, it being a figure to help people cope with emotional problems. "Art: A Brief History," in this case,  is the interpreter who determines the context and significance of art pieces.

Art Comparisons

Introduction

Although “Art: A Brief History” is the official interpreter who determines the context and significance of an art piece, that doesn’t mean the interpretation is right or provides an unbiased interpretation. How ironic! Our group's choices for the art comparison section are:

Art #1: The Goddess Coatlicue Mexico, Aztec, c. 1500 CE. Basalt, height 8' 6" (2.65 m). Museo Nacional de Antropologia, Mexico City. (Figure 3)

AND

Art #2: Virgin and Child From the abbey church of Saint-Denis c. 1324-1339. Silver gift and enamel, height 27 1/8'' (69 cm). Musee du Louvre, Paris. (Figure 4)

The Goddess Coatlicue (Figure 4)	Virgin and Child (Figure 3)

The West vs. The Rest

Before we can begin any artwork comparison, we have to explain what we mean when we claim a biased interpretation on behalf of “Art: A Brief History.” Stuart Hall’s article “The West vs. The Rest: Discourse and Power” discusses the term orientalism. “Orientalism” is the representation of oriental countries based on a European point of view, discourse. The reason discourse is stereotypical is that is construes the way others think based on it. An example of this could be how in the 15th century, German travelers visited India and wrote that “In the land of Indian there are men with dogs’ heads who talk by barking...” If one were to hear this today about another race, this would not make any sense, but before exploration was new and people barely even knew that other continents existed. So when European countries heard this, it established a norm and stereotype. 

So what does orientalism have to do with “The West vs. The Rest”? Believe it or not, European countries have placed themselves in a position of power and have established other countries, including the oriental, as “the rest.” We could go over numerous examples of how European countries have created certain norms and stereotypes and degraded other cultures for not being like them, “The West,” but instead we will discuss “Art: A Brief History” take on “The West vs. The Rest”

Coatlicue and The Virgin

    “Art: A Brief History” is the official interpreter of both these images. Despite both having similar purposes, “Art: A Brief History” does not interpret them similarly. 

    To start off with similarities, both are religious figures. “Art: A Brief History,” refers to Coatlicue as an “Aztec sculpture” (Stokstad, 412) while the “Virgin and child” is referred to as a “religious subject” (Stokstad, 276). It is obvious that although both are religious figures, both are referred to very differently. 
Another similarity would be how in both of their cultures, they are the definition of beauty and divinity. “The Goddess Coatlicue” was beautiful because of her bulky and static figure. The textbook, however, declared that her “powerful” (Stokstad, 412),  “imposing” (Stokstad, 412), and “confronting” (Stokstad, 412) figure was “unsettling” (Stokstad, 412). The textbook describes “The Virgin and Child” as “majestic” (Stokstad, 276),  “tender” (Stokstad, 276), and “graceful” (Stokstad, 276). Although both were ideal beauties in their culture, the textbook seems to belittle the beauty in “The Goddess Coatlicue” as it doesn’t represent the beauty standard “The West” has created. 

    Along with both being religious figures and the definition of ideal beauty in their cultures, both are motherhood images that were publicly displayed. According to Lecture 10/27, Coatlicue was hidden by Spaniards when she was found because they were terrified of her imposing figure. In the textbook, there is no mention of Coatlicue as being a motherhood figure but instead described simply as a “sculpture” (Stokstad, 412). The textbook, however, mentions the “Virgin and Child” as an “emotional expressive” (Stokstad, 276) public religious sculpture of a mother’s “tender” (Stokstad, 276) and godly “touch” (Stokstad, 276). “Art: A Brief History” differentiates the public images in the sense that because the Virgin’s touch is “tender” (Stokstad, 276), it is a motherhood image, but Coatlicue’s “confronting” (Stokstad, 276) image is not comforting or motherlike.

Conclusion

    The textbook’s interpretation of both these is an example of how although pieces of art have similar uses and similar context, “The West,” the sculpture of the “Virgin and Child” will always hold positive connotations as “The Goddess Coatlicue,” being an image representing “the rest,” holds negative connotations such as “unsettling” (Stokstad, 276). 

    Although “Art: A Brief History” is the official interpreter of these and other art pieces, it is important for the reader to evaluate the information presented to them. Reasons for this would be that if we were only to read and analyze the information presented to us but not questioned, the reader carries on a stereotypical discourse that the West has promoted. It is essential for the reader to determine what “Art: A Brief History” interprets and how.