The reading for Tuesday the 17th talked about the legitimization of color lithography and poster making as fine art. Contemporary prints were not shown in museums at the time. In fact, color lithography was not included in the Paris Salon until 1899. Black and white were typically favored in fine art. One of the most interesting parts of the reading was about tactics used to legitimize color prints. For example, in Vollard’s L’album des peintres graveurs, ten of the twenty-two prints were in color whereas twelve of the prints were black and white lithographs. The mix of black and white with color prints, as well as the use of muted colors, slowly introduced the public to the idea.
In the 1890s critics, Roger Marx and André Mellerio wrote to develop theories to legitimize color lithography and posters as fine art. Marx downplayed the role of the medium and instead focused on the aura of the artwork. To Marx, the medium of the artwork was not as important as the original thought of the artist. He classifies things as art as long as the piece "transmits the force of action of the original thought." On the other hand, Mellerio does not want to blur lines between mediums because he insists that the idiosyncrasies of different mediums are important. Mellerio expanded the definition of art to include multiple originals. He says that art can be explicitly designed for the medium rather than being a facsimile, or modeled after an “original”. Thinking of Clement Greenberg's ideas on medium specificity, Mellerio says that if we recognize mediums as different we can appreciate the charm and uniqueness of their differences. Mellerio describes that the charm of reproductive prints is in the way “the matte impression inks the paper without seeming too heavy.” Mellerio describes prints as avoiding "ambitious effects" and instead working with "a simplicity of means." He appreciates the simplicity and harmony of color and line that is commonly seen in posters.
One quotation that got me thinking from the reading was, “The boisterous burst of color called for by the utilitarian goal of the poster.” I started to think of other art forms that could be described as having a utilitarian goal similar to a poster. I thought of the uniforms designed by Russian Constructivists as having a utilitarian goal while also relying on simplicity of designs though in a bit of a different way. I thought of advertisements, the fashion industry, and graphic design. I think in a capitalist society we start to see the lines of art and commerce but also the lines of man and machine being blurred.
Here are some questions I was thinking about while I was reading:
Can/does the definition of high art include a proliferation of reproductive media? or is there something about the exclusivity of original print mediums that rejects reproductive media?
As our society progresses into a more technological space where the boundaries of man and machine are being blurred, how do we value things such as digital art? Thinking of Greenberg’s ideas of medium specificity, should we think about digital art as being designed for the screen (thereby being fundamentally different from tangible forms of media)?
How do we see the gesture of the artist in reproductive prints? How is it different from the gesture in mediums like painting? Is the gesture of the artist in the choices they make rather than visible marks?