A few days ago, I mentioned that I could appreciate Watts' portraits, but that I had difficulties with his other paintings. Today, it was as if Chesterton specifically addressed this topic: he discussed the function of allegory in paintings. He points out that the meaning of allegory in a painting should not be to say something that can be said better in words. It should not be something like a cipher-code, connecting the right symbols together to form a simple message. Watts' allegories are much richer, according to Chesterton.
The two main examples that are discussed are 'Hope' and 'Mammon'. Chesterton points out that even these words are, in fact, allegories for very complex and broad concepts. The paintings are just another way of depicting this ultimate, underlying reality.
Although these paintings are still not 'my style', at least now I understand more of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment