Re: VAN GOGH VISUAL IMPAIRMENT??? Home Page On Jun 29, 1996 17:16:28, 'Carol M Zemel <czemel@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>' wrote: >van Gogh suffered a form of epilepsy (which is not really a >disease but a varied collection of symptoms, Dutch neurologists tell >me); he had no visual problems. Every so often we hear claims that the styles of certain artists are due to some kind of eye problem or defect. Van Gogh and El Greco are the common subjects of these assertions. These propositions come from a fundamental belief common among certain people that the true aim of art is "realism," realism used not in the sense it is used by art historians, but rather as a normative goal or concept that governs not just the will to create, but what should be created. Style, according to this theory, or any perceived deviation from this "normative" ideal, is considered a defect, hence El Greco suffered from astigmatism and Van Gogh had blurry vision from cataracts or something like that. By accepting a physiological cause for their styles, the non-naturalistic style can be accepted: "At least they tried," they might say. Goya's style can be explained by his supposed lead poisoning. Other manifestations of this impulse can be seen in places that enshrine "great" art for popular consumption. Although I never visited the now closed Palace of Living Art in Southern California (see Umberto Eco, Travels in Hyperreality), the postcard I have of the Venus de Milo from there demonstrates this point well. Instead of reproducing the sculpture as we know it, the artist of the Palace piece (I think it was made of wax) projected first what the sculpture would have looked like had it not been damaged, and second, even more importantly, he created the Venus de Milo as she would have looked had the artist's style not corrupted his subject. I hypothesize that the impulse for these values stems from the inability of some to encounter ideas representative of worlds outside of their own experience. Art must come to them, to support them, to provide validity and certification of their own values. It should never challenge. These people cannot truly abide the notion that they live in a multi-valued world. History exists to ratify their own beliefs not to widen them. Here is the root of the anti-intellectual anti-humanistic pulse that is laying waste to our scholarly culture and to our museum communities. These attitudes lie behind the attacks on the Enola Gay exhibit and the demise of the NEA and NEH. Here are two simple (I hope not too simplistic) proofs that El Greco's style and Van Gogh's style are not due to eye abnormalities: Say El Greco's supposed astigmatism made him see everything twice as high as normal, but horizontal dimensions were perceived correctly. If he painted a square he would see it as a vertical rectangle. To paint what he saw as a vertical rectangle, he would have to paint a square. Hence, no elongation. If he saw everything elongated vertically, how do you account for horizontal elements also painted elongated. An arm, for instance, held horizontally would have to be twice as high: stubby, while its apparent length would be unchanged. Similarly, Van Gogh, to paint bright elements radiating through out the atmosphere would have to paint them sharp and confined to be able to see them radiating. Let's call this for what it is: the realistic fallacy. But with this terminology we are still quite far from the heart of the matter, for it is not merely a problem in logic but representative of a fundamental and powerful political and social outlook, an outlook that is as dangerous as it is pervasive. -- Robert A. Baron Museum Computer Consultant |