A look at how Paul Klee would have been a motion designer if he were alive today
Fine Art is accepting of digital work, but it's the art world's mentality itself that makes me think it's impossible to know if a painter like Klee would embrace it (whilst nice to speculate!)
The 'more screens where work could be seen' comes from working in the Motion Design industry rather than Fine Art perhaps. I think we are quite progressive in sharing work, the art world can be quite stuffy... though I do wonder if we overshare a little sometimes.
Fine Artists can be more coy on presenting work. I've known some artists limit themselves to one gallery exhibition a year, very much like film-makers who only submit to the festival circuit and may never put their film on Vimeo.
Off the top of my head someone like Julian Opie is maybe an example of an artist using digital animation in fine art. He sells animated works as physical pieces (I'm pretty sure you can buy a very expensive iPad with a Julian Opie GIF installed on it).
However I'd maybe interpret Opie's use of animation as integral to the art, similar to say Warhol using print reproductions as a comment on mass-consumerism... rather than it being the most convenient form to deliver his art to the masses.
It is interesting to look at the crossovers and differences between Fine Art and Design and how we share work.
Even more interesting as you touch on is what the gallery space represents. I'd suggest reading 'What are you looking at' by Will Gompertz, as he has some interesting thoughts on galleries, the future of art, it's also a great insight into art from 19th century onwards.
Here's something I found a while back that you might like, these are some GIFs a design agency created that are influenced by the De Stijl movement from the early 20th century.
Hello Stephen, thanks for your reply!
I am not a historian and am speculating, of course. Your point about experimental filmmakers who lived and worked during Klee's time is true, and I thought of that. But here are the problems for a painter wanting to make a movie back then.
- No color (until Len Lye, but that was painting on film)
- Very labor intensive workflow (although that did not stop some)
- Very limited audience due to difficulty showing the work
As you suggest, the gallery was the place where art was displayed and accepted back then, and so painting was the way to create visual art. Even photography was not really accepted yet.
I guess my main point is that, given the availability of tools and the widespread number of screens where the work could be seen, Paul Klee today would very likely have worked in Motion given the way his paintings look, which are filled with Motion.
Weirdly enough, the gallery system still dominates serious 'art' - for now.
Speculating is fun, and also I think helps place the present into some context, which is often difficult to see because we are so in it every day.
I really enjoy Klee's work and his friend Kandinsky who's style is also very 'animated'. It's interesting to hear a motion designers thoughts on their work.
I do think this piece jumps to conclusions about Klee wanting to animate these and perhaps is a little flippant of the author to assume that if the technology is there that they would be animated. The 1920s were an era where there was plenty of animators / film-makers creating video art, Lottie Reineger, Buñuel etc. I think perhaps he could have animated these, maybe he just didn't desire to.
I like to think Klee wanted to create paintings to be seen in the world, exhibiting physical objects in a space. In an era where observing these objects in a gallery would've been more exciting than watching them slide around on a screen...
Of course I'm also making an assumption.