In my “Monuments and Ideas in Western Art” class, my professor asked us to watch a video. It was a video on edges. For five or six minutes, a very knowledgeable man named Thomas P. Campbell, the director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, talked about why he loves edges. He loves the edges of sculptures, the edges of tapestries, the edges of paintings. He loves the intentionality behind the use or misuse of an edge. This video can be found here: https://www.metmuseum.org/connections/the_edge
My concept of edges and borders was broadened by this video. Director Campbell examined edges of art pieces that had nothing in common. They differed in everything from the styles and mediums to the origins and the time periods. He went from examining a Grecian freeze to waxing eloquent about a Chinese tapestry. However, the one thing in common in all the works of art was the fact that they have edges. To Director Campbell, if the edges of the piece are not examined, then it is only partly understood.
Director Campbell’s claim holds true because the borders within artwork often reflect the intention of the artist and the history of the piece. As the video displays through the analysis of Degas’ “The Dance Class” borders are often intentional and, if someone has the courage to look at them, they bring a greater understanding of the piece. The history of the piece is often revealed through its edges. In the case of Duccio di Buoninsegna’s Madonna and Child, the history and reverence for the painting is revealed through the wax stains left upon the original frame from the candles lit in its presence. Because Professor Cassarino called our attention to the artist Mary Kramer and her series of paintings on borders within the earth, I rethought how I viewed the edges of art pieces. I was forced to examine the role that borders play universally, not just within literature. If even the earth, paintings, sculptures, and poems have borders, does everything? If so, is it our job as humans to seek those borders out? I realize these are rather absolutist and generic questions. However, these are definitely questions that have plagued me throughout this course.
Honestly, before watching this video, I never really paid much attention to borders in art. One thing that Director Campbell said that really stood out to me was when he was talking about Jackson Pollock’s art, and he said, “I always think about how those [splatters of paint] that stayed on the canvas became part of this iconic painting, while the splatters that fell outside the edge of the canvas remained on the floor.” I’ve never really thought about the things that don’t get put in art before, the things that get taken out and left out. I’m sure that some artist at some point has thought about doing a Pollock-esque style painting on the floor, and then discarding the painting and calling the mess left on the floor around the painting site the actual art. And it would be rather artistic–I kind of like the image of a mess of various paint splatters all over the floor, except for a spotless rectangle where the canvas laid on the floor. Anti-art, maybe. One could say it’s more borderless than a painting done on a canvas, but even with this there is a border, probably between the point of the farthest reaches of the paint and point where the floor is clean again. If we want to take this to its extreme, every piece of art, no matter how expansive it is, has a border. I think the only piece of art that wouldn’t have a border would be if I put a piece of paper on the ground and titled my art piece “THE UNIVERSE.” Because the universe does not have a border that we could ever comprehend, and there is no known edge of it.
Aside from our entire universe, though, everything has a border, not just art. Because everything ends at some point in space or time, that means that everything has a border.
I didn’t mean to get so existential, but that’s what happens when you try to get technical about borders. They’re everywhere.
Many people, including myself, are guilty of enjoying art for only its aesthetic purpose; however, as shown by even just this study of edges, each work has a much more elaborate story crafted in its structure. Although I am far from an expert regarding art, I find the manner in which one can get lost in a piece to be incredible. I think, especially through artistic mediums, it is difficult to determine where the piece begins, both physically and symbolically. Always intertwined with the physical work are the life of the artist, the history of the art piece itself, and the experiences of the observer. Is it possible to delineate where one of these starts and the others end? I feel the novel The Goldfinch, by Donna Tart, is an incredible example of this concept. Through tracking the history of Carel Fabritius’s art piece, the work demonstrates the interconnectedness of these three aspects in relation to the life of the fictional protagonist, and how his interactions with the painting culminate to create a highly individualized relationship with the piece. Therefore, I believe that borders within art cannot just be drawn around the physical edges of the work; however, they transcend one another, lending a unique interpretation to each individual.
This answer doesn’t exactly correspond to your questions, but your post made me think about the borders of art in a way I had never considered before. Specifically in the sense of where does art end and non-art begin? I can’t count the amount of times I’ve been to a gallery or a museum, and a sculpture there appears to have no edges. A piece of rebar will lay on the floor or lean against a wall. In doing so, it makes the room part of the artwork. Does the floor became a piece of the art? The room? The building? The lack of a clear border makes almost anything possible. Perhaps by laying a bit of metal against a wall, the artist just turned the entirety of earth and outer space into art. How crazy is that?
Thank you for sharing this video!!! I love hearing knowledgeable people talk about art… it is so interesting. As for borders, I believe it is our job to seek them out. Like Campbell talked about, you can’t really understand a piece until you’ve looked at the borders. Seeking these out and assessing their relevance and impact is crucial to understanding anything. Even if these borders are harmful, recognizing they exist and the effect they have is always the first step!
P.S. Sorry my answer was so broad
Seems like the video more or less stated that edges are needed to produce any form of art. That only borders and edges can bound and contain an idea. Certain concepts, though ( say, human rights and human nature) are borderless. It depends on the context. I believe that borders are necessary when trying to zoom in on one idea, but in the broader scheme, beauty and art can go without a border.