Filipinos need to clarify their understanding of Western and local artistic history. We have a problem acquiring a whole big picture of both histories. The problem has to do with the fact of distance.
When Westerners read history they are reading their own story over time. Not much distance divides them from its concrete manifestations. Museums, old buildings, and the architecture are close by. And so too the general Western mindset as well as the observable cultural “ways”. For the native Westerner, they are a fact of growing up.
We, on the other hand, have to observe this culture from a distance and through vicarious means such as media and books.
This method of viewing is inherently faulty. Consider for instance that looking at an original Van Gogh painting in a museum is by no means equal to the experience of looking at the same painting from a book or screen.
The two experiences are profoundly different.
This tells us that the act of reading history from the details, so to speak, is not quite effective unless one has the general picture of it. And yet, the standard educational practice is to teach history “chapter by chapter”. At no point, in the teaching of history is the “position” of the student clearly defined. In most instances, the student is left with no better option than to memorize the details of history just to pass the course. Clearly, the study of history is pointless unless the student makes sense of it.
Where art history is concerned it is better for us to identify the general “philosophical” transitions as a prelude to studying the periods and movements which represent the transitions of history. The periods and movements are many and finely detailed. To try to acquire all of it to a high level of mastery is pointless unless one identifies this to be one’s specialized field. The philosophies on the other hand can be apprehended and tested from our own personal life experiences.
For most artists, it is better simply to divide history into its general transitions in the sense of philosophy. In Western art history, the classical philosophies are pertinent from the periods of the ancient civilizations all the way to the late 1800s when Modernism began.
Modernism was the major philosophical background for the Modernist art movements operating until the late 1960s. After this, the fact of mass communication and new technology would change the world to the extent that we see now. This period is called the period of post-modernism.
There is some argument as to the whether we should use the term “post-modern” or not. There was a certain intellectual and academic “pretentiousness” which accompanied the usage of this word in the West. We, Filipinos, should not abide by this discomfiture with the word. If we do not use it, we cannot understand it fully. All the more impossible for us to define it for ourselves and our own culture.
Thus, the philosophical transitions of history are Classical, Modern, Post-Modern, until the Present. The first three are established philosophies in history. They are not too difficult to understand. They can be summarized and Kinutil will certainly try to do this by the next essay which comes out on Sunday.
The “Present” on the other hand is, for now, indeterminate especially because it is in flux and so therefore argued about. Most traditional history books begin from the earliest remembered past. But one must wonder if this is the best way to go about understanding history.
We are better off to start from the confusion of the present and then work our way backwards into the philosophical and historical clarity of the past.
All the better for us to define first and foremost our own position or where we are coming from, as we establish for ourselves a clearer “sense” of our own past.
The study of history should clarify rather than muddle our understanding of the world we live in. We should have a palpable indicator for whether these essays have helped us. These should, at the very least, lead us to losing our fear of talking about art.
A better understanding of art can only lead us to see that all that a person really needs to know about art can be learned from the simple and common understanding of life itself.
What the books tell us is all very well, but really only secondary.