Everything in art serves its purpose, but perhaps some purposes are better served than others.

For
example, the perfectly crafted works of sculptures like Michelangelos David have an artistic purpose
held in higher regard than the cave paintings of prehistoric times. It might be because one is strictly
reserved for linguistic reasons. It might be because one consumed more time to carve and create. It
might be because one has a more interesting story to tell. Either way, one cannot deny that the arts
purpose can often be judged on a higher level than the artwork itself. Thus, two subjects are given.
Frederic Churchs Cotopaxi and the Uruk Vase. The narrative work of the Uruk vase serves a greater
artistic purpose than the strictly visual purposes of the Cotopaxi.
One might argue that saying one pieces objective is of lesser value than the others objective is like
trying to have an argument with someone about which tastes better, apples or orangesa classic
example. Quality is a very broad term, after all. So for the sake of artistic argument, it will be said that
quality is in reference to two things: Originality and timelessness. It can (and will be) established that
the two purposes being judged are (A.) trying to portray a story/message, or (B.) trying to gain approval
by displaying talent. Obviously these motives are present in much more artwork than just the two
specific pieces, so now well jump into the big, bad, broad question. Which generates more originality
and timelessness?
The Cotopaxi is practically the epitome of 19
th
century naturalism. Needless to say, the driving force
behind the work is to create impossibly realistic beauty while, most importantly, showing off the artists
skill. Not only is this basis shallow, but its almost enough to say that the painting is generating an artistic
lust in viewers. It encourages viewers to drool at the forefront beauty, requiring no thought to be put
forth in regard to deeper creativity. If this painting were ever placed next to the Uruk Vase in an exhibit,
Cotopaxi would most certainly win the popularity contest. Of course the painting would win though,
because popularity is what it strives for. By simply looking at the bright red sun bursting through the
clouds, casting its glow on the lake and foliage, its not difficult to see the clich in the execution of
naturalism to generate beauty. Through realism, Church is drawing in viewers by forcing them to picture
themselves in an environment that could never be denied its grace, especially in contrast to an inferior
realityor in this case an even more inferior looking vase. And as an added bonus, he gets to flaunt his
artistic skill at the same time. This ties in with the very popular use of light exaggeration in naturalism
and still life of the 19
th
century to display an artists talent to the best of their abilities. However, just
because something is a piece of eye-candy doesnt mean it should be written off as useless aesthetics.
But the basic photograph-style content of the Cotopaxi does create a one dimensional complexity as a
result of a purpose that can therefore be deemed low quality. That being said, it would make a very nice
postcard.
The Uruk Vase isnt beautiful; far from it. An example of this is seen in the third panel from the bottom,
where the naked figures are carrying objects. The fact that the workers are nakednot nude portrays
the ugliness of labor and therefore contributes to the ugliness of the vase. But the vase isnt about the
beauty, its about the message and narrative. This is a major contrast to everything previously stated
about the Cotopaxi, for without its beauty, the painting would be nothing. Nothing. The design of the
vase (reading from bottom to top) portrays a circle of life, using the circular paneling of the vase design
to express a perpetual timeline to compliment this. The water at the bottom of the vase is symbolic of a
need for the basis of life while the male and female sheep represent the importance of fertility. Above
this panel, it can be seen that the humans are walking in an opposite direction than the animals. Perhaps
this is representative of humans contradicting the population growth of the animals. Either way, in a
more broad sense this shows that the piece even leaves room for less obvious interpretation. To add
more variety, there is a less perpetual narrative depicted in the top panel, with a less obvious message.
Whats clear however is the strong presence of religion, as seen with the priest king and woman (who is
potentially a goddess). The purpose of the artworkto display this life cycle and the implications behind
itleaves much greater room for creativity. This creativity is spawned by the purpose, leading the way
to the creation of many dimensions of artwork, such as the perpetual structure of the narrative, the
direction of interpretation (bottom to top) of the vase, the direction of the motion of the figures on each
panel, and even the artists choice to make the figures naked. This imagination is relatively timeless, and
therefore conveys that the Uruk Vase does have a higher quality purpose.
Having different tastes is okay, but claiming that one can stand the test of time over another is leaning
more toward the fact side, rather than the opinion. After all, the aim of the painter is to obtain praise,
favour and good-will for his work (Alberti p.87), rather than serve a lasting purpose. The Cotopaxi is an
amazing landscape and structure butexaggerated artistic features asideit becomes obsolete with
the invention of the camera. Perhaps the most common (and slightly depressing) modern comment that
can be made about any naturalistic painting like Churchs, is that it almost looks like a photo. In other
words, the artist almost achieved the quality of what a mindless machine could produce. The Cotopaxi
painting is a thing, or place if you will. It can be recreated with the right tools. The Uruk Vase is an idea, a
message, and a story, residing within an object. This is because it was inspired by these very things, not
by looks. As clich as it may be, material based on looks alone is a recipe for something very shallow.
The originality debate also lands in the favor of the Uruk Vase. Not only does the Uruk Vase contain all
the complex artistic details described earlier, but the Cotopaxi is also extremely lacking in unique
thought. Actually, it would seem that this is done purposefully in order to achieve the painters goal.
Church abused naturalism in order to render positive reactions out of the viewers. Unlike various
canons that refer to pieces of perfection in nature that create a refined work, Church is simply taking
aspects of nature that are known for making peoples senses gush. The lighting, the smoking volcano,
the canyon, the lake, the trees, the sun, the sky, the waterfall. All its missing is the rainbow. Its
conformity, simple as that. What is interesting though, is that this way of thinking is parallel to the way
of thinking that created the various works of modern art in the 20
th
century. No, modern artists were
obviously not conforming to the norms of beautyquite the oppositebut they were aiming for the
same goal of eliciting some kind of reaction from the public. Modern art was nothing without its
criticism and this Church-style naturalism is nothing without its praise. Not coincidentally, both have
their issues with being either too creative or not creative enough.
Ideally, a brilliant work of art should inhabit both aspects. There is something commonly said about
music and lyrics. The catchiness of the melody is what draws the listener in, and as the person becomes
more familiar with the song, they begin to analyze and gain meaning from the lyrics. Ideal art runs in a
similar fashion. The pieces beauty should be enough to draw them in, but the meaning of the piece
should push them to do more than just window-shop. The contrast between the Uruk Vase and the
Cotopaxi painting is a perfect one because it is a competition between prehistoric symbolism and
modern aesthetics (from the use of modern painting luxuries). And interestingly enough, prehistoric
symbolism wins the race. Innovative, deep thinking takes precedence in artwork over all the bells and
whistles of visuals.