Art and Symbolism

Symbolism has for a long time been a part of art. During the renaissance paintings took on both the work of the church and of the ruling class. If one was to look at say Masaccio’s “The Tribute Money” in the Brancacci Chapel of Santa Maria De Carmine in Florence, the symbolism of St. Peter Paying the tax man is meant to encourage the people to pay a newly levied tax.

In Robert Campin’s “Merode Altarpiece” he has included many symbols. Some a little harder to decipher to the modern eye. In the right panel, containing St. Joseph in his workshop he is has a mousetrap on the window sill. This was to symbolize Jesus as the trap of the devil. He is also working on wine making equipment, symbolizing the wine in the eucharist, for shadowing the crucifixion of Christ.

The question is, how do modern artist use symbolism in their works today. Or do they at all? I would argue that todays art is as full of symbolism as the works of the past. The major difference is that many modern works hold a more personal symbolism for the creator, and are less about trying to get the ruling class or church’s messages across.

If I were speaking for myself most of my art has some form of deeper symbolic meaning, though it may not be so obvious at first glance. Like most modern art and artists, those symbols are personal, and have meaning to me. They may at some point or an other “make sense” to the viewer, but that is not the primary objective.

One of my last projects was to paint a self portrait on a mirror. Why? Well the idea behind a mirror is that not only does it reflect the image of the person looking at it, but also the background/environment that it is hanging in. In other words the person looking at the portrait becomes a part of it, thus becoming me, and me them. Also since I painted no background, the environment that surrounds the piece, becomes part of the piece. A “reflection” on the fact that I have moved and travelled a great deal, and all those environments have become a part of my world, and that I have had to adapt to all of them.

Other artists use symbolism to comment on society, and modern life. I know that I often refer to Warhol, but some of his works, such as the “Campbell’s Soup Cans” and “Brillo Boxes”, were meant to reflect on our consumerist society, and obsession with brands. What is intriguing is that name Warhol itself became a brand that many wanted to consume.

Still today, artists wanting to make a political statement will often include symbolism in their art. There are for instance many paintings of the American flag that have been made for instance often either symbolizing a love for America or a hatred depending of the artist. One famous version was the one below, done by Jasper Johns.

Curator Anne Umland of the MoMa in New York, states that Johns is in effect trying to paint the familiar. In the words of the artist “something the mind already knows”. The symbolism is not so much in the painting he would continue but that it freed him to do the work, as he no longer had to design the actual piece. The question is often asked then is this a flag or a painting. It’s both in many ways. The work no matter can’t escape the symbolism that is embodied in the American Flag itself. 

       Later in 1969, during the Viet Nam war, John's painted an other american flag, one with a decidedly less romantic view perhaps of the United States than the one above, painted in the 1950s, what could be considered America's "golden age". What could he be saying here?

In the Photography of Robert Polidori, we see can see some symbolism in the urban decay of many of his works. Polidori himself has said:

“ When images are soft, they just remain evocative, or in your imagination. You get a mood, and it remains on the emotional level. The viewer has to put more of him or herself into it. When there is more detail, it’s like that old expression: There’s no fiction stranger than reality. Reality will compose the most extreme paradoxes and contradictions and adjacencies, which can’t be understood”

Polidori’s work evokes emotion in what I could best describe and a combination of decay and beauty. Some of his photographs of Chernobyl for instance really show the urgency of the people leaving, by what they left behind. For me personally a photograph taken in Beirut showing plants surviving in a destroyed apartment really gives one the sense that even after senseless tragedy, life somehow finds a way to get back on track.

These are but a few examples on how symbolism is still alive and well in the world of visual art. In my work, or that of others. Though the rules may have changed, and artist are not (always) trying to put a governments view across, but rather their own, that symbolism is often what gives meaning to art. If could be often that we see symbolism that was not meant to be there, perhaps we miss something the artist intended. In the end though the use of symbols in art is as important today as it was in the Renaissance and before.

Hergé and Warhol

  One subject people often talk about when it comes to art is how other artists influence each other, learn from one an other, and sometimes even borrow or steal ideas from each other. From the renaissance to modern times one can see how different artists have in one way or an other had some kind of influence on the works, and lives of others.

In the modern era, artists talk about their art and both inspire and teach on an other. If in the renaissance workshops tried to keep their trade secrets from each other, by the 19th Century, artists were gathering in cafes and salons to discuss art, and shape many of what became the modern art movements. 

One such relationship I found interesting is a rather modern one. A relationship between pop artist Andy Warhol and graphic novelist Hergé. With the soon to be released Stephen Spielberg movie based on Hergé’s most famous creation Tin Tin, all things Hergé are back in the spotlight. Perhaps also being fascinated by the works of both these artists, looking at how one influenced and was important to the other is something I wanted to look further into.

If I can say I had a first true love affair with art, it would have been with the work of Hergé. I started to read The Adventures of Tin Tin when I was five or six. Already being a globe trotting kid, living in France, then the Middle East, there was something exciting about the young Belgian reporter, going on adventures around the world. Though as an artist, I am not in any way shape or form close to being a graphic novelist or illustrator, the basic and bright colour palette used by Hergé and his simplicity of use of space and line are things that definitely have made it’s way into my painting style.
What is interesting is that as Hergé became wealthier, he became himself quite a collector of art. No only did he like older Flemish works such as Breugel (who I have talked about before), and Holbein, but also modern artists such as Joan Miro, Roy Lichtenstein, famous for is graphic cartoon style, and Andy Warhol, famous for well, fame. During the 1960s, Hergé started himself to take art classes and started painting modern abstract pieces like the one below. 

   As for Andy Warhol, he is a great love of mine that was developed in my teens. Perhaps as a young gay man I started to identify with this openly gay, avant guard artist. I think I also started to be fascinated by celebrity culture, something Warhol became well know for. What I loved about the work of Warhol is that it is very graphic. It tends to be simple in line and in colour. The colours are bright, and he tended to use primary colours or red, blue, yellow. Does this sound familiar? Both Roy Lichtenstein and Warhol credited Hergé as influential in the American Pop art movement of the 1960s. Hergé’s use of artistic economy and of clear line was perfect for what became the iconic works of Warhol and Lichtenstein. 

In the late 1970s, Hergé commissioned Warhol to do his Portrait. It would be the first meeting of the two. A few years later in 1983 Hergé passed away.

What I was hoping to show in this brief article is how even today, artists, from various mediums influence one an other, even me. I also find it fascinating that artists that I love, influence one an other. A French minimalist artist named Jean Pierre Raynaud was quoted as saying about Hergé:

 "He has a precision of the kind I love in Mondrian. He has the artistic economy that you find in Matisse's drawings. He perfectly crystallises what he wants to say and, as a result, his work never ages."

When I started this Blog, the first thing I placed on here was a quote by Piete Mondrian, who perhaps more than any other artist has influenced what I do. It’s his work in New York, his linear blocks of colour that really speak to me. It truly is what I love about painting which is all about the paint, the colour of it. To see an other artist relate to work of Hergé to Mondrian in perhaps in itself why I love it so much. I should maybe now start looking to Hergé, my first true love, as my true inspiration in everything.