I often like to fool myself into thinking I am fair person when it comes to judging a painting’s artistic merit. When I observe a work of art I cross my arms, perhaps touch my chin with hand, node my head and tilt it slightly to the right; it is as if I am in a deep reverie trying to come to a conclusion regarding the piece’s meaning. Truthfully, I had a tendency to exaggerate my interest in artwork that was not in my selected canon of masterpieces; contemporary and surreal art being the latter. The guilt was there. I wish I could have been more open to artwork that is more or less obscure in its purpose, however, it was difficult for me to find beauty in a piece of art that seemed to have required no effort or time. My brother has an entirely different perspective on contemporary art. His apartment is flooded with simple pieces that looked as if they were plucked from a child’s coloring sketch book. It was a simple gift from him that changed my perspective on an art movement that I once neglected as being period of time where artistic creativity was entirely absent.
It was a Saturday morning when my brother showed up at my door barring a present. Obviously a poster, it was rolled up tucked beneath his arm and I knew it was going to be a gift of irony or utter disappointment. We exchanged some mundane words and he handed me the poster with an unusual smirk on his face and left. The poster was a print of a painting I have seen before, and scolded. The piece was, simply, a portrait of a suspending umbrella in mid air with a glass of water balancing on top of it. That was it. I shook my head in disbelief that this piece had been mass produced due to its popularity. What was I to do with this? I most certainly did not want to post it next to my Klimt and Mucha prints that decorated my home. I had to find out who this artist was and what exactly was so appealing about such a simplistic piece of art.
A quick Encyclopedia search revealed the piece to be a painting by Rene Margritte titled Les Vacances De Hegel (Hegel’s Holiday, 1957). Margritte was a Belgium painter, whose work became popular during the surrealist movement in the early 1920’s post World War I. I read on. Surrealism was an artistic movement that challenged the observer’s preconditioned perception on reality, essentially forcing one to become more in touch with his or her surroundings. His work was obviously popular; a simple Google search produced millions of different images and interpretations of his work. Paintings of a man with a green apple placed awkwardly in front of his face, business men raining over a crowded city, illusions of feet as a pair of boots, the infamous umbrella and glass of water, all riddled my computer screen. His technique was there; his combination of realism with abstract images was intriguing, yet, I was still skeptical. It seemed Margritte’s art centralized around shocking imagery. I poured over articles and online books that described his method. Hopkins, the author of Dada and Surrealism: A Very Short Introduction, explains the visual appeal of his pieces was of upmost importance rather than having any rebellious significance. The paintings were simple, borderline dull, but as I read on it appeared there was much more to his technique. Hegel’s Holiday became much more interesting than I had initially anticipated.
The title alone was enough for me to continue my internet research. Georg Wilhelm Friedrick Hegel, a 19th century German philosopher, was known for his idealistic account on the concept of reality, so the contrast between the two objects must have been essential to the pieces fluidity. In Hegel’s Holiday, the relationship I observed between the umbrella and glass of water initially appeared to be obscure, besides the obvious fact they both are commonly associated with water. Yet, it is this association that turned the piece into an entirely cohesive idea. The objects were acting as an illusion. An article by Randa Dudnick titled, Visible Poetry: Metaphor and Metonymy in the Paintings of Rene Magritte, describes the umbrella and glass of water as mere inventions of human kind to control water - the glass we use to control the quantity of water and the umbrella to keep from pouring down on us.
Hegel is on holiday, neglecting the exhaustion of logical demonstration in order to devote himself to objects that replicate, and entertain, the reality of nature. Was it is this type of illusion a Surrealist was trying to obtain within their art? By manipulating a realistic technique, were they able to derail reality? How could I have been so vain to be oblivious to such a philosophical interpretation of trivial objects? I assume Magritte, along with the other Surrealist painters, resented art fans such as myself; myself being one of the unfortunate people who demanded a great allegorical implication in a piece of art. I couldn’t help but feel ashamed over my prejudices.
Although the piece appeared to consist of little thought and imagination, its historical creation painted a different perspective for me. As my mission for information persisted I came across a published letter from Magritte regarding his quest for perfection in the piece:
My latest painting began with the question: how to show a glass of water in a painting in such a way that it would not be indifferent? Or whimsical, or arbitrary, or weak – but, allow us to use the word, with genius? (Without false modesty.) I began by drawing many glasses of water, always with a linear mark on the glass. This line, after the 100th or 150th drawing, widened out and finally took the form of an umbrella. The umbrella was then put into the glass, and to conclude, underneath the glass. Which is the exact solution to the initial question: how to paint a glass of water with genius.
I was shocked at the extreme preparation taken to construct a seemingly effortless piece. My prejudices, regarding surrealist paintings to be effortless, were slowly losing its merit. Hegel’s Holiday was now unearthing a subtle, yet lucid rhetoric, which was hidden within simplistic brush strokes. It no longer lacked any sort of inventive preparation.
It was this analysis of Hegel’s Holiday, two objects with opposing functions must have been Magritte’s intention. The response one would give, such as myself, to such a basic objective is exactly what Magritte must have envisioned. We may respond in laughter, confusion or misunderstanding, but all of these emotions are commonly used connotations to describe reality. It is this strange relationship between an umbrella and glass of water that would unearth an uncomfortable response. I realized I was one of those pretentious art critiques I once criticized. I was solely basing my judgment on presupposed ideas and interpretations on what art is, and I was not allowing my existence in reality to let the art speak for itself.
I felt utterly prudish, lacking any sort of creative thought; this was especially depressing for one who tries to exercise her own unique creativity in this conventional world- whether or not she is successful in doing so. I realized my acquired taste in art was molded by the very intrusive world I was trying to ignore. The standards of what is art set forth by our society had, in deed, impacted me more than I was wanting: real art looks like this or that, real art consists of these certain attributes and real art must fall under these credentials. I was ignoring the intrinsic connection between personal creativity and interpretation. I was not welcoming art as a spiritual quest rather than just a visual one. The break between classical artists, and their conceptual concerns, and the wider, popular, public was blurred by my lack of openness. Perhaps it was this openness that modern artists themselves where searching for, or helping others find, in their obscure pieces.
My online research concluded that Margritte’s work was a reflection of the collective consciousness of his era; there was a growing alienation between the artist and the public’s perception on distinguished art. It appeared he was interrogating his own being into the painting rather than giving the public an image of its contemporary expectations. Magritte was metaphorically painting images of opposing objects to display their true duality with one another. Like any other classical artist, he was communicating a vision through a painting.
Appreciating abstract and modern art is still problematic for me; there are far too many current artists whose expert skills are overshadowed by the goofballs next door who pile a bunch of garbage together in a trash can and call it art. However, I’ve come to realize modern art is entirely theoretical; modern art cannot separate itself from theoretical aspects, the appreciation and pleasure of art just like the classics. I couldn’t help but feel defeated in my, supposed, rejection of contemporary society that instills its standards upon civilization in the most invasive sense- I was one of its victims. The poster remained curled up on my desk and the need to throw it away in pride was imminent. However, it was my desire to transform my judgment that compelled me to take the print and post it near my bookcase- a bookcase filled with art criticism manuals and coffee table books that had tainted my opinions on aesthetics. Acting as an ironic reminder of my naivety, the poster of an umbrella and glass of water reflected an empowered sense of personal perception, in all of its simplicity.
