Thursday, November 26, 2015

Review of the documentary on Johannes Vermeer


Review of the documentary on Johannes Vermeer
What are the common features found in the painting by Vermeer?
Do you like his works ? Why or why not?

What is Art? How to appreciate Art? They are difficult questions for me, as there are not enough Art’s education during my primary and secondary school education. Art is a platform for us to express personal feelings and creativities. In my understanding Art is something subjective. After watching Master of Light, an introductory documentary on Johannes Vermeer’s paintings, I grasped a deeper understanding about the way of analysis and appreciation of art works. I realized that there were some perspectives for Art’s analysis, helping viewers to express their opinions more objectively. Those perspectives helped me to gather some common features in Vermeer’s paintings, namely: the use of light, the construction of the environment and the use of colors. In the following film review, I will explain those common features and my personal feelings of his art works.

The first common feature of Vermeer’s art works is making good use of light. In his paintings, light has a great feature in strengthening the focus of viewers and creating the atmosphere or theme. As light bought viewers into paintings, helping them identify the vanishing point and main point of works. For example, in Music lesson, Vermeer selectively manipulated the light to strengthen the focus, which he eliminated the shadows in backdrop to emphasize the silhouettes of the figure.[1] In Women holding a balance, the light was coming via the window, it brought a sense of soft, deep and rich, which gently evolve in the painting, enriching the soft theme of the painting.[2] Therefore, light helping viewers come into his paintings, and bring the theme of his works to a deeper level.

The second point to be noted is the good construction of the environment, everything in Vermeer’s painting is calculated carefully, the placing of figures and objects had its unique meaning. For example, in Women in blue reading a letter, Vermeer placed the women in the central point, with a pyramidal form, which partially concealed by a chair and the dark table on the left, turned slightly away the viewer.[3] This placing of figure and objects shows that neither the women nor her environment welcomes us into her physical and psychological space.[4] In Music Lesson, Vermeer calculated every aspects of its composition, including the figure, the musical instruments, the mirror and other objects.[5] All things started from the vanishing point to construct an interlocking pattern and shape.[6] In order to separate figures and viewers, Vermeer placed a large tapestry-covered table, a floor with strong and diagonal pattern, providing private space and communication for figures.[7] Therefore, we can note the great construction and placement of Vermeer’s painting.

The next common feature is the good use of colors, as Vermeer used color to emphasize the main focus of the painting and bring paintings more vividly to viewers, helping them more easily to understand his paintings. In Musical Lesson, Vermeer used the yellow-white blouse in women’s dressing, golden color of the virginal to match the reflected light on the back wall to highlight the figures[8]. The red of the women skirt and the floor pattern and other objects locked viewers’ eyes in his painting.[9] In general, the combination of the color created major and minor accents in the painting, showing the importance of the selection of color.[10] In Girl with the red hat, Vermeer used color to express emotions of the figure and leaded viewers concentrating on the flame red hat as well as lushness of her blue robe.[11] In the background, Vermeer used color to bring a sense of warmth to viewers, but in the hat Vermeer used red, an intensely warm and active color to heighten the immediacy of girl’s gaze.[12] As we can see from the above example, Vermeer demonstrated his sensitivity of using color, which made his paintings more attractive and vivid to viewers.

In my opinion, Vermeer’s painting is difficult to understand, as his paintings were neither religious painting nor having specific style, he captured our daily activities in his paintings. Unlike religious paintings, there were no any stories as background of his paintings, namely: Bible. Therefore, when I examine his paintings, I need to put down my assumptions of the message, opening my mind to understand those paintings. At the same time, I realized that: although he only captured some daily moments, all of them were expressed in a vivid way - making normal into special. Which brings a reflection to me that paintings or the art are not required to base on tremendous or importance moments of our life or our society, it can be something more basic- our daily life, showing art can be personal, which don’t need to depend on religious groups or countries. At the same time, if we have enough skills, we can bring normal moments more attractive, which is also my appreciation of Vermeer’s paintings.

Also, Vermeer’s paintings let me realized the importance of placing objects and using of colors in my paintings. When I was painting, I tried my best to construct the real environment into my work, which I only consider authenticity, instead of constructing a more vivid environment by altering its objects and colors to best suit the entire situation. In Music Lesson, Vermeer demonstrated his talents in placing objects in his painting to separate figures and viewers, providing privacy space for figures. Which I never thought before, I realized that art was sometime not realistic, we can alter some details in order to have greatest visual effects. Therefore, I have a meaningful lesson after analyzing Vermeer’s paintings, improving me soft skills to construct my paintings.

To conclude, Vermeer’s paintings were leading his generation, ranging from the use of colors, the placing of objects to the construction of the environment. I believe that by analyzing his paintings, we can all gain something. Due to my inadequate knowledge in paining, I can only realize some basic problems of my works, however Vermeer’s paintings can be my life time teacher. When I keep improving my knowledge in painting, I can gain more from Vermeer’ works, not only in basic like colors, but also on a deeper level, namely: emotion and calculation of paintings.

Reference:
The Master of Light. Directed by Joe Krakora. USA: National Gallery of Art, 2001. Film. Wheelock K. Arthur. JR, Vermeer the Art of Painting. New Haven: Yale University Press 1995.



[1] The Master of Light, Directed by Joe Krakora (USA: National Gallery of Art, 2001), Film.
[2] The Master of Light, Directed by Joe Krakora, Film.
[3] Arthur K. Wheelock, JR, Vermeer the Art of Painting (New Haven: Yale University Press 1995), 7.
[4] Wheelock, Vermeer the Art of Painting, 7.
[5] The Master of Light, Directed by Joe Krakora.
[6] The Master of Light, Directed by Joe Krakora.
[7] The Master of Light, Directed by Joe Krakora.
[8] The Master of Light, Directed by Joe Krakora.
[9] The Master of Light, Directed by Joe Krakora.
[10] The Master of Light, Directed by Joe Krakora.
[11] The Master of Light, Directed by Joe Krakora.
[12] The Master of Light, Directed by Joe Krakora.

Friday, November 6, 2015

期中習作──個人反思文章


《大學》曰,「大學之道,在明明德,在新民,在止於至善」。「明明德」,意思是使自己的德性自覺明朗;「新民」,意思是教化他人,使他人能「自新其德」;「至善」則兼指兩者的圓滿完成。[1]從以上可見大學之道有兩個方面:個人和社會之終極圓滿。在課堂上不同老師亦提出其他學者對大學之道的見解,經過深入反思後,本人在個人和社會兩方面同意John Henry Newman Purpose of Christian Higher Education 的看法,並認為有三個大學的理念於當今香港社會猶為重要,以下將加以詳細論述。
                       
首先在個人方面,本人同意 Newman 提出自由教育的概念,認為教育的目的在培養個人的批判及知性能力,並非為就業作培訓。Newman 之概念與《大學》當中的大學之道不謀而合,均指向學習知識使自身能有知性能力,令自己德性名確,說明大學對個人知性培養的重要。本人認為大學教育可以提供自由知識,不規限學習的範疇,可以上至天文下至地理,不過由於知識之廣大,個人要訓練其批判能力,分析知識的真偽和可信程度。本人深信在大學學習知識是為目的,使個人談吐、舉止更溫文爾雅,並且通過研讀聖言書得以確立待人處世的價值觀與方向,繼而使心靈之光得以發光發亮。在一切而非利用知識作謀生之職業教育,亦不能用狹窄功利的尺度衡量教育。

其次在社會方面,Newman亦提出大學培養之人才應該是關注社會道德的公民,是理想性格之模鑄。[2]本人十分同意以上看法,因為大學之教育亦在於使個人有判斷道德對錯之責任,令受教育者在社會上能分別是非對錯,本着良心做事,有道德底線。例如在早前在中國發生的眾多黑心食品事件中,主要的原因為中國內地的企業家沒有接受到良好的道德教育,沒有最基本的是非道德判斷能力,只以利益作其商業考量,對社會沒有承擔,才會以低價成本製造有毒食品。本人認為大學的教育亦是令個體有將心比己、同情心等社會道德價值的性格模鑄,這種理想的道德觀有助個體面對社會上的誘惑,例如貪污、同流合污、偷竊等不道德行為,即使在將來工作面對不道德事情時亦有勇氣指正,對社會道德有承擔。因而本人與Newman之觀念在社會方面相同,故本人同意其概念。

至於在基督教高等教育的目的上,亦提及教育並且只為個人而是為了整個社會,教育是為了貢獻社會[3],本人亦同意以上看法。因為大學生是社會上少數受到高等教育的學生,他們學習不單單為了個人知識上的追求,更為了改變社會上的種種問題。他們有責任對不公義的事情發聲及行動,例如在個人層面上支持公平貿易產品,減少大財團對小農的剝削。社會層面上面對地產霸權一事,亦有大學生發起支持小商店的行動,在中文大學更有學生組織「山城士多」提供一個平台讓大眾接觸本地的小商家。這些亦是貢獻社會的例子,大學生應該對社會有所憧憬,用自己的力量建設更好的社會,改變不公義不公平的現象,使社會成為一個美好社會。因而基督教高等教育所培訓的貢獻精神有如在學生成長期間種下一顆種子,在他們畢業成長後可以開花結果,將所學的知識貢獻社會。

本人在以上段落當中將大學之理念分為個人及社會兩方面進行論述,然而在評估大學理念的論點在香港社會的重要性時,本人會從大學教育的意義、學術自由、及通識教育的重要性三方面出發。

基督教高等教育的目的指出:教育並非為學習資訊,而是對智慧甚至真理的追求[4],而Newman亦指出大學提供的並非實用知識(useful knowledge),本人認為以上兩個觀點的核心價值-大學教育並非職業教育,對當今香港社會十分重要。因為香港社會深受功利主義、物質主義、快餐式價值等所影響,認為讀書學習只為追求文憑、學位在將來找到一份好工作,因而誤解大學為職業培訓所,是高社經地位工作的保證。例如由小到大家長們便安排子女參加不同的補習班、興趣班,務求使他們贏在起跑線上,進入一所優秀的小學以至大學。中學生在大學選科時亦以科目之前景作準則,一些有較高收入的科目如環球商業、法學、醫學等均競爭甚多,相反傳統文社科卻不流。然而以上社會現象卻極為反常,家長希望子女成為社會價值中的模範,但過份對子女的訓練卻令他們對學習知識失去興趣,過分針對學業的培訓更忽略子女對多方面的發展,無法在「德智體群美」五方面成為五育並全的學生。如果大學為職業訓練所的觀念未能修正,將令家長迫使子女跟隨傳統的所謂「成功之路」,未能使下一代的教育得到個性化指導因此可見以上社會觀念對下一世代的負面影響,如果社會大眾嘗試以另一角度理解大學的功能-對個人智慧、品格、知性的性格模鑄時,則有助莘莘學子可以免除受功利主義所影響,找尋自己的興趣,因而可以走自己獨特的路,令各人之內在潛能得以發揮。

在另一方面,Wilhelm Von Humboldt 指出「大學是有志於學術者與研究者進行心智活動的場所,與國家無關,即所謂學術自由。易言之,國家不應要求大學為國家服務,而應相信大學成就了自身的目標的同時亦實現了國家的福祉」[5],本人認為此觀點亦對香港社會有很大重要性。因為香港的公立大學主要由教資會提供資源,而本人認為近年推出的「優配學額」制度(Competitive Allocation) 與上述大學理念背道而馳。因為在制度中要求各大學重新分配部份學士學額,當中並求各院校提出計劃方案,重新競逐學位。問題在於各大學均有獨特的歷史背景和定位,而且大學應該是一所有自主權的機構,不應該跟隨政府的計劃為其服務 ,而是要使不同的科目和知識得以傳承開創。教資會的機制有機會使大學變得商業化,只開設一些以商業和專業主導的科目,以得到教資會的支持獲派更多學額。相反一些傳統的人文學術則被邊緣化,甚至因為資源不足而被殺系。因此香港政府及教資會必須對此大學之理念有更深的理解,因而平衡大學自主權力與公共資源,令大學之理念得以落實。

另外,楊玉良在「大學的人文精神和通識教育」中提及通識教育的重要性,本人認為這個大學的理念在香港社會亦十分重要。作者在文中提及教育的本質為對終極價值和絕對真理的追求,但是現今的大學因為社會風氣變得比較功利,追求排名、論文發表量及其他量化指標,漠視通識教育對學生成長的重要性。因為通識教育目的在於培養學生的獨立思考和探索精神,其涉及人類本質的問題,不單單重視人文教育亦包括科學方面的教育,展示不同文化、民族、學科的思考模式,令學生得以跳出平日思維,培養對其他知識以開放式的態度,令他們得以求善求美求真求實。[6]如果大學忽略通識教育則有機會是學生側重於自己學科的探索,忽略了對整體人文世界的了解,欠缺個人獨立思考和批判能力,因而面對社會視大學為職業專才培訓之時,大學應該堅守通識教育, 培養學生成為通才而非專才,令學生得到全人發展。

           總括而言,本人在以上反思文章中提及兩種本人同意的大學的理念,並指出三項對香港社會尤為重要的大學價值。面對社會急功近利商業掛帥的環境下,大學必須確定其核心價值及教育的理念,從而堅守大學教育的質素。而以作為大學學生亦對社會、個人付責任,體會大學教育對其人生的改變,同時將所學所得回饋社會。

參考文獻 :
白耀燦。《崇基真善美》。香港 : 崇基學院GECC1130 大學修學指導課堂簡報,2015
崇基學院。《這一站大學》。香港 : 崇基學院,2012
崇基學院。《校訓詳釋》。香港 : 崇基學院,2015
鄭宗義。《大學之理念》。香港 : 崇基學院GECC1130 大學修學指導課堂講義,2015




[1] 崇基學院,《校訓詳釋》(香港 : 崇基學院2015),頁1
[2] 鄭宗義,《大學之理念》(香港 : 崇基學院GECC1130 大學修學指導課堂講義,2015)  ,頁2
[3] 白耀燦,《崇基真善美》(香港 : 崇基學院GECC1130 大學修學指導課堂簡報2015)  ,頁26
[4] 同上 ,頁26
[5] 鄭宗義,《大學之理念》(香港 : 崇基學院GECC1130 大學修學指導課堂講義,2015)  ,頁1
[6] 崇基學院《這一站大學》(香港 : 崇基學院2012) ,頁42-43