I was struck by Michael Baxandall's quote on influence. He very eloquently describes what seems to be the greatest problem with Barr's art chart. Barr's chart suggests that changes in artistic styles occur in one direction, as if they are all stepping-stones toward an ultimate goal “impoverishing the means of differentiation.” The arrows are supposed to suggest influence, but they read as suggesting cause and effect. I liked Baxandall’s idea of reversing the action of influence, reversing the cause and the effect. It is a more accurate description of what happens when someone or something is influenced, at least in art. Perhaps Barr’s chart would have been better without arrows, using only lines to express connections and change. Nevertheless, this chart was good for the context it was being used in and seemed to achieve it’s intended goals.
I enjoyed Reinhardt’s chart more. It would not be appropriate for the catalogue cover of an art show at a museum. It’s just more stimulating and rewards you more as you inspect it. The tree is a reliable and familiar metaphor for history. I think it’s more accurate to think of those that came before you as roots rather than influences. I like that it includes more names than Barr’s chart did, and the spare leaves are a nice touch (the tree of art is still growing!). It is lacking, however, in indication of style or time-period. Color would really add a lot too.
No comments:
Post a Comment