Review: Kubler

I really appreciated Kubler's "The Shape of Time". I thought he went in to a lot of very interesting points, the first being his review of genius. It was really interesting to learn that adopted children of musicians and artists held a lot of their adoptive parents qualities. (Meaning that genius originated from nature, not nurture). I thought that was very interesting because my thought has always been that people were born genius, which is why they can be "discovered" later in life even if they don't get the training their talent requires at a young age (which Kubler briefly touches on). I wish he would have draw more of a line between genius and prodigy, because I think that it is possible that when Kubler says genius I see prodigy, which leads to confusion.

I loved his opinion on artists sharing techniques and methods. "The formal sequence thus might find its realization in several crafts simultaneously" (Kubler 1962, 44). I loved this because it reminded me of something that we discuss frequently in anthropology: the culture is borrowed and shared. This is how it is possible to have "romantics born in periods requiring classic measure" (Kubler 1962, 45). It's not that the artists were 'born at the wrong time', but actually that they were inspired from an third style from an earlier time, and this inspiration pushed the classical period into what we know as the romantic period. Artists borrow forms and styles from each other, which allows art as a study to grown and change.

I believe that this is why many artists collaborated and wanted feedback from other predominate artists of the time. Many artists value their peers and want to see how their work is received by other people in their field. However it's possible that some of the "rebels" that Kubler talks about used collaboration for a different reason (Kubler 1962, 47). If one wanted to break from the norm, they first have to identify what the norm is. By doing this they can create something new a different.

I disagree with one of Kubler's final points. He says, almost in passing, that "today the artist is neither a rebel nor an entertainer" (Kubler 1962, 47). I think this is wrong in two cases. Firstly, in the 1960s Salvador Dali was still alive and painting until the 1980s. Perhaps he wasn't new in the '60s, but he was still a predominant and influential painter, producing amazing a rebellious works. The second thing that I didn't like about this phrase was it's implication that art is would not be a rebellious force in the future. It's extremely true in today's world that art continues to be an extremely rebellious force. From the art of defacing other's art, to feminist art, to spray painted murals. There's are things that are breaking from the status quo and drawing attention from people around the world. Art, by it's nature is rebellious, and will always be entertaining.