The essay is an analysis of three interpretations of Pierre Bonnard’s paintings offered by Jean Clair, John Elderfield, and Yves-Alain Bois. Their approaches are crucial in the context of the revaluation Bonnard’s works and his place in the history of modern painting, which has been continuing since the 1980s. Today’s scholars have been interested mostly in his late works from 1920-1947. At that time the artist created a multidimensional pictorial synthesis which addressed the most advanced dilemmas which appeared in the first half of the 20th century. The critical opinions analyzed in the essay, referring to physiology and the psychology of perception, the cognitive conditions of visual perception, and specific philosophical traditions, stem from individual visual experience and demonstrate significant tensions. Taking the painting as a starting point triggers differences in interpretation not just at the level of theoretical discourse, but in respect to visualization itself. Bonnard’s works significantly program the process of visual perception – grasping the changing rhythm of relation between the center and periphery and moving toward fixations scattered in the visual field. The specific composition of paintings makes the spectator deconcentrate; it can be grasped in an act of perception which extends in time. Such “delay” of perception means that Bonnard’s paintings are a challenge to the gestalt psychology which prevails in the analytical practice of art history. The unique quality of Bonnard’s works, based on the coexistence of the rhythms of organization and disorder,shows no superior coherence of the gestalt. They establish an “inconclusive” relation between the part and the whole, which results in continuing deference and delay of the integration of motifs and elements of the pictorial field. The discussed episode in Bonnard’s art’s reception confirms a belief that “he is not a painter for those in a hurry. The phenomenon of the perceptive delay seems to be significantly connected with the delay in discovering such qualities by art historians.
This text attempts to use photographic images as source testimony concerning the creative process employed by Giorgio Morandi (1890–1964) and to use them as a comparative medium to trace. A series of photographs taken by Luigi Ghirri in 1989 reveals the phenomenological parameters of a studio that was the artist’s living space and the locus of his painting practice. In the photographer’s view, the studio has the characteristics of an optical chamber for observing phenomena related to the objects of study. The main part of the essay focuses on a comparative analysis of the 1964 Still Life with a photograph of objects related to this work. While a photograph has the temporal characteristics of a testimony, a painted image, due to its immersion in the manual procedure of its execution, possesses a temporality that accentuates the present-time quality of the perceptual event.
PL
Niniejszy tekst jest próbą wykorzystania fotografii jako świadectwa źródłowego, dotyczącego procesu twórczego Giorgia Morandiego (1890–1964), oraz posłużenia się nimi jako medium komparatystycznym, pozwalającym prześledzić modalności czasowe dzieła malarskiego. Seria zdjęć wykonanych przez Luigiego Ghirriego w 1989 r. ukazuje fenomenologiczne parametry pracowni, która była przestrzenią życiową artysty i jego praktyki malarskiej. W ujęciu fotografa pracownia ma cechy komory optycznej, służącej obserwacji zjawisk związanych z przedmiotami studium. Przedmiotem zasadniczej części artykułu jest analiza porównawcza Martwej natury z 1964 r. z nawiązującym do tej kompozycji zdjęciem obiektów. O ile fotografia ma cechy czasowości świadectwa, o tyle obraz malarski przez swoje zanurzenie w manualnej procedurze wykonawczej charakteryzuje się temporalnością akcentującą teraźniejszość wydarzenia percepcyjnego.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.