Artistic Method

Stephen Eisenman includes Seurat’s quote, “They [writers and critics] see poetry in what I do. No. I apply my method and that is all.” When I read this, I was strongly reminded of analogies I’ve seen used to describe computer programming. I’ve been told that in writing a computer program, a person is figuring out exactly how to solve a problem without actually solving the problem. The computer programmer is the architect. He creates the method and the commands, each saying something along the lines of, “When you see this, perform that task.” Once the program is written, all the user has to do is tell the computer the individual situation, and then the computer goes and does the grunt work (actually performing the tasks required).
Pointillism in painting seems to run along these lines. The artist creates a plan before even conceiving the subject of the painting. When the subject of the painting calls for sunlight shining through trees, use a certain-sized point with a particular mix of colors, and that is how one creates these trees. If, instead, the subject calls for painting a human face, use this different type of point with this different mix of colors, and the face can be created. That’s where the creativity lies: in figuring out the exact technique to create the proper effect. After all of that has been figured out, then the actual task of applying the paint to the canvas and drawing the points in the pre-described way is trivial, and almost could be seen as grunt work. In this quote, Seurat uses the possessive pronoun when describing only his method, not the act of painting. He sees value in the development of the technique used to create luminosity, shading, or certain figures. Perhaps if he had owned a computer, Seurat would have devised a way to tell the computer to go paint the paintings, so that he could devote his time to discovery of new techniques in artistic representation.
This idea, however far-fetched, brings up interesting implications about art itself. Does the art lie in the act of painting, the manner in which the painter labors day after day to create a finished object for viewing? Or does the art truly lie in the vision the painter sees in his head, and is attempting to reproduce on the canvas. Or does art lie in the creative devices the painter uses to make this reproductions pleasing , lifelike, or meaningful? With the shift from Impressionism to Postimpressionism, it would seem that the symbolism behind the subject matter presented in certain ways is just as integral to art as the act of depicting this symbolism through painting. If painting is a language through which painters comment about society, as we’ve so often heard in this class, then it could be that the creative art is actually the comment about society. Or if painting is a forum in which to present new techniques in artistic rendering, then it could also be argued that the creative art lies in developing these techniques.