And then?

I've reached the point where the function of Art changed, and it changed because of two technologies: photography and printing.  A photographer, even in the mid-19th Century, could record an accurate image in a fracton of the time it would take an artist to do the job less accurately.  Using the new print technologies the image - or any image - could be reproduced as amny times as required, and very cheaply.  Of course these are both monochromatic technologies at this point, but the writing's on the wall for painting.  Just as Art came to terms with how things really look, just as the skills of the painter reached a zenith of maturalism, so those skills - as far as strict reportage is concerned - were becoming redundant.

What I'd like to carry forward is the idea that a painting has different meanings to different people right from the beginning, even before it is completed in some respects.  The Artist will have a view: s/he may be obsessed with the conception and execution of the artwork as a pure work of art; s/he may have a mercenary attitude, concerned to please the commissoning patron; whatever, s/he will be concerned about achieving the desired outcome, either in artistic terms, or in terms of fulfilling the commission, or (most likely) both.  The patron will have a view.  How prescriptive was the commission?  How well is the artist fulfilling the brief?  Is it value for money?  Will it enhance the patron's prestige?  The casual viewer - perhaps in a saleroom or a gallery, will have a view too.  What is it?  Do I like it?  Is it well executed?  Is it any good?  Does it move me?

All this is not unimportant.  Consensus is harder to reach with so many different viewpoints.  To take a simple example, here are some of the comments I've heard about J M W Turner's work:

* he couldn't paint people at all accurately

* he is the forerunner of the Impressionists

* he is better than the Impressionists

* his eyesight was wonky

* he is the greatest British artist of all time

* he was a hack, only in it for the money

And so on.  Obviously these views are not all mutually exclusive; some people like one part of Turner's opus, some another.  But there is no complete consensus, despite the historical perspective we have.  Generally, what there is is a canon of work regarded as being worth looking at.  And that applies to all Art up to, say, the 1900s.  And then, and then . . .