For what purpose, art?

[drwex]

Yesterday, tisana posted something that caused myself and deadwinter to exchange briefly about the purpose of art. I figured it was probably crass to continue hijacking her LJ comment thread so I'm moving it to here. Also, I have a number of artist friends whose opinions I'd value hearing.

For this I'm going to define "art" quite broadly, as all sorts of creative forms. Written and spoken word, visual arts, you name it, everyone gets to play.

Thesis: Art should not be deliberately obscure in its purpose of meaning or message.

dw states it somewhat more gently but I think that's a sentence he'd agree with. On the surface I'm initially tempted to agree with him. Art is in many respects a communicative act; if it fails to communicate it seems reasonable to say the art has failed.

But the minute I start to dig on this it turns into a slippery slope, thus: _who_ is being communicated with/to? What are the criteria by which we'd judge deliberate obscurity? If I make a picture that no one but me gets is that a failure in my picture or in the viewing audience? What if I'd shown it to a different audience? What if just one person out there gets my message/meaning*? Is that a failure? What if I only intended to communicate with that person? Is there a tipping point somewhere on the "no one gets it" to "everyone gets it" spectrum where I get to relax and say, 'Yep, did it; I communicated with my audience.'

(*Classically this is what cryptography is about - ensuring that only intended recipient(s) can read messages. One might argue that cryptography is art, or is the antithesis of art. I think I could argue either side. Or both.)

This derived from a thread about art that was posited as superior, in the sense of "ha, I get it and you don't" more or less as a kind of "in joke". But it also touches on the fundamental conflict between so-called "high" art and so-called "pop" or mass culture art. Is one form better than the other? From the point of view of snob status the ballet might be better despite its much more impenetrable messages than, say, a music video with great broad audience appeal. Conversely, the fact that ballet (or opera) is inaccessible might be deemed a mark of its failure.

This also assumes that obscurity of message is something that can be controlled by the artist. People can try to make something accessible and end up missing the mark completely; or, they might labor in obscurity for years only to suddenly be "discovered" and have their message heard and understood by a huge new audience. Conversely, if an artist deliberately makes something she thinks only a few people will "get" is she necessarily doing something wrong/bad/less than trying to make the message clearer and more explicit? Isn't there something to be said for the reward of an effort made to understand the message? Isn't that somehow better than having the message "handed" to you?

Oh, did you think I was going to have answers? Nah, just questions.

Comments

[quezz.livejournal.com]

In order to consider the question of obscurity, you need to consider the purpose of art in general in any given society. You seem to be assuming, if I'm reading your argument correctly, that art is intended to run counter to mainstream culture -- that art is somehow meant to be exclusive, unavailable, or accessible to a certain class/group of the society's members. That is a very modern Western POV -- art in many ways is intentionally obscured because it is so often used to mock or question culture.

When you have to endeavor to "get" art in our society, this usually means the art was somehow created to cause contention between the artist and the viewer -- this is also a typically modern Western approach to art's purpose. This contentious relationship is not all that present in other societies, because art is used as a tool to instruct, offers a message that speaks to normalization of the viewer rather than challenge, or is otherwise considered a vital of understanding general ideas that the society promotes.

In other words...art is supposed to "hand" you certain messages, through visual means in many societies. The message the artist offers to society is more important than any individual concern with obscurity or contentious message. If you subscribe to this belief, "obscure" art is a failure.

If not, if the relationship between artist and viewer is one of challenge, then what difference does it make if the viewer doesn't "get it"? in a sense...the artists wins either way.

That is, unless the artist wants to be understood. If s/he does...they screwed up bigtime, and it's not fair to leave the fault to the viewer. Artists have responsibilities in either scenario, and must accept the consequences as the producer of the images in question.

[drwex]

Not at all. I'm assuming, at bare minimum, that if art has a purpose it's purpose is somehow to form part of a communicative process. But that's a pretty low bar to set.

[harlequinaide.livejournal.com]

Is Chaucer accessable? Milton? Not to my students. Is it still art?

I find ballet very accessable, and enjoyable. Does that save it from being not-art, no matter how many people don't get it?

Adrianne Rich writes poetry that is suffused with Latin words and vocabulary that is well above the heads of most Americans. Is her poetry a failure? What if she doesn't care whether or not "most Americans" get it? What is she doesn't want them to?

At the same time, while I think Milli Vanilli was accessible, I'm not convinced it was art. How about comic books? I love 'em, especially the ones with super-heroes. But I'm not convinced that they're all "art" in the classic sense. How about the old Dungeons and Dragons cartoon (which I've been watching reruns of, lately). Is that more "art" than Fellinni or Hitchcock?

If we require art to be accessable to all people, regardless of mental capacity, we end up with Harrison Bergeron. Rather, I think that the reverse is true: in order for something to be "art," in the classic sense, it must require some effort on the part of the audience. It can't be easy. If it's easy, it probably doesn't challenge our perceptions or alter our world in any meaningful way, and might as well be, I don't know, breakfast cereal. Frosted Flakes are not art, and vise versa. I think that, rather than accessibility, art should be judged on the degree to which is challenges us, our perceptions, our assumptions, our cognitive abilities. For example, Ah-Ha's "Take On Me" would be entertainment, but their "Dover" would be "art."

Entertainment isn't a pejorative. I like "Take on Me" better than "Dover," but the former doesn't make me think the way the latter does. Art, however, has a specific definition, a specific purpose. I think it belittles both entertainment and art to conflate them.

[dpolicar]

I've thought about this from time to time, and I've taken a lot of different positions.

Mostly I think that thinking of art as a form of communication is, while true, distracting. It evokes precisely the kind of information-theory reading-frame that you're in here, and that goes off to one side of what makes art worthwhile for me.

By way of analogy -- a punch to the jaw is certainly a form of communication, but its primary purpose is as an instrument of state change. (And, yes, _all_ communication is intended as an instrument of state change. But as above, concentrating on the punch to the jaw as a communication is primarily, to my mind, a distraction.)

An injection of adrenalin can, I guess, be considered a form of communication... though here we get even more tenuous. A flu vaccine, more tenuous still.

The point of all this is that, IMHO, the proper measure of art is the effect it has on its audience. _Not_ whether they properly decode the art or not, _not_ whether the audience recapitulates some state that is recognizably what the artist had in mind at the time, not even whether the artist _was_ in any state of mind (eg, I'm content to judge sunsets by the same artistic/aesthetic criteria as paintings, even without hypothesizing some intentional sunset-creator). Just, what effect it has.

If the effect it has is to leave them staring at it for a long time feeling like there's some kind of message there they aren't _quite_ getting... I can see where that might be valuable, or not.

If it's to leave them standing there feeling stupid because they aren't educated enough to get it... I don't see much point to that, personally.

Etc. etc. etc.

In this sense, I find the drug metaphor more useful than than the message metaphor for art.

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

This is not a useful question. Sorry.

The reason why this is not a useful question dates back to Aristotle's definition of art: "Art is the imitation of life".

Ergo, asking "What is the purpose of art?" is akin to asking "What is the meaning of life?"

Art has no "purpose"; art "is".

[drwex]

As I said to quezz above I'm setting a very low bar for the 'purpose' of art, if such exists. That said, whether or not art "is" one can ask questions as to whether it's successful or not. Unless you wish to maintain that artists are entirely intent-free, which I don't accept. Artists are not carbon atoms. Carbon atoms _are_; artists are purposeful members of societies.

[water-childe.livejournal.com]

Art is all about the manipulation of image and perception.
Perception is something that varies greatly from person to person. Therefore to me 'art' is as personal and as varied as perception and thus will never be completely and concretely defined. Lots of things qualify as 'art'. But frankly when most people argue about art, I think what they are really dickering over is 'value' and 'worth'.

[quezz.livejournal.com]

I think this is far too pat an answer, especially since Aristotle came from a society that for religious chose more direct imitation. Art is created by a person or persons with some purpose in mind, ergo, art has to have purpose. It does not simply come to exist as life does.

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

Any objet d'art, any instantiation of art, any work of art is created by a person, ostensibly with a purpose. But "art" does not have a definable purpose.

Any work of art is created, but "art" simply came to exist, as life did.

(The analogy holds: there may not be a definable, universal "meaning of life", but any given person's life most likely has meaning.)

[quezz.livejournal.com]

That is Aristotlean to a fault. :) "Art" is NOT a Form in the Aristotlean sense, because Art is tangible, and not a concept of mind or emotion, like Good, Evil, Wisdom, Virtue, etc. "Art" came to exist because Man invented its physical presence, unlike concepts of mind which are said to predate and exist independently of Man's existence.

You can have the opinion that Art simply IS, but the analogy holds in your mind and whomeever decide to agree with you only.

Then again, I suppose it doesn't matter much either way.

[heinleinfan.livejournal.com]

For me, I do not "get" a lot of art, especially abstract art. I'm the lowest common denominator when it comes to my art and entertainment. But, while not "getting it," I can *appreciate* a lot of it and try to rein in my disdain of what I consider "pretentious, obscure, bullshit" art.

Hmmm....these questions remind me somewhat of a theory a guy I used to date had. His theory was that rich people weren't really happy - and the things they "enjoyed" were all just for show and they were really miserable doing it. Like opera or really nasty foot-ass cheese that's $57 a pound or caviar...all things that to him were just disgusting but typically "enjoyed" by the rich. It was all just a big pretentious show.

Why does an art debate remind me of this? Because when I think of "obscure" art I'm picturing someone looking at this huge wall sized canvas that's painted completely red then a tiny blue dot is placed in one corner and the title is "A Whale in Africa Eating His Own Corpse" and the person looking at it is going "Oh, just look at this work. It's amazing. I love it. The thoughts it provokes. The artistry. The emotion. I feel like *I* am in Africa eating *my* own corpse when I look at this painting. I must own it!"

And I'm thinking "Dude...if you want a big red canvas with a tiny blue dot, I can help you out with that and hell, I'll only charge you a few bucks. Or, conversely, if you *really* want to be in Africa eating your own corpse, I could help you out with that for a few bucks more."


*I* just can't *possibly see* how a big red canvas with a blue dot could mean anything. And because of that bias on my part, seeing someone gush about it, or hearing the artist drone on about his inspriration in painting a giant red canvas with a tiny blue dot makes me want to throttle someone. (Or at a minimum, roll my eyes and make gagging motions behind their backs.) It makes me think that the dude raving about the painting and the artist are just faking it all, falling prey to their own "ideas" of what "art" is. It comes across as just pretentious blathering to me.


I think that artist do have somewhat of a responsibility to "create" to their target audience. Or to at least be willing to accept comments of "I don't get it" instead of airily defending said not-gotten work and accusing those not getting it of being ignorant monkeys.

I suppose that painters that paint big red canvases with tiny blue dots and give them ridiculous names know that the art crowd they are pleasing just eat that shit up and thus, big red canvases everywhere.

But I much prefer something that is straightforward and not pretentious, preferrably something that makes me laugh or smile. (And not because I'm mocking the artist in my head....)

[drwex]

Is the labeling of things as "pretentious, obscure, bullshit" your way of expressing your resentment that you _didn't_ "get it"?

*I* just can't *possibly see* how a big red canvas with a blue dot could mean anything.

So if it's not accessible to you then it's not meaningful?

[quezz.livejournal.com]

Art is so much about process (process of its creation, process of the artist, process of the viewer) that it's really hard to look at a result and say, "Oh, i get that." That is what modern art tried to prove, to varied success. I think when people call modern "pretentious, obscure, bullshit" they are usually considering the result in and of itself -- with results, there's rarely anything to "get."

I've heard the same stuff said about African art that was entirely accessible to people who understood the process of making it. I find it amusing when someone doesn't "get it," then becomes offended at the idea that the art is inaccessible.

[heinleinfan.livejournal.com]

No, that's not what I was trying to imply.

I think there is a...level where the artist and the people appreciating it are just being pretentious. They're just wallowing in each other's ego boosting. That is what I find annoying about *some* art and *some* art appreciators. And the labeling of things as pretentious, obscure, bullshit art is my label for when this is going on.

And I was also thinking in general terms. I think to the "lowest common denominator" of society the sense of "what is art" is mixed up in this sense of "elitist things I don't know about". Hence the analogy to "rich people" things that are really just nasty, but people "enjoy" them. There's very little art appreciation taught in, say, a poor Mississippi high school. But then, occasionally, there's a visit to some museum where you're just stuck there looking at this weird stuff and people around it are just acting like it's changed their life.

Without a basis for appreciation of what others have created/what the viewers are experiencing, it just comes across as pretentious.

I've learned over the years though that, when it's just generally "umm...I...don't get it..." then I may wonder what all the fuss is about, but I won't generally bash the artist or admirer. But there are still times when I see something that is so...BAD...that I just can muster nothing but disdain for people who profess that it's really good and refuse to believe that they could possibly find it "amazing" and the more obnoxious they are being in their assertations of it's amazingness...the more pretentious I feel they are being.

This is all just *my* opinions about it though and I realize that. Thus, I generally keep my mouth shut when discussing specific pieces of art.

*shrugs*

[dlusionlvr.livejournal.com]

"I think that artist do have somewhat of a responsibility to 'create' to their target audience."

Most fine artists don't have target audiences. There's usually more intrinsic value involved.

"Or to at least be willing to accept comments of 'I don't get it' instead of airily defending said not-gotten work and accusing those not getting it of being ignorant monkeys."

Thankfully most artists do not accuse their viewers of being ignorant monkeys, or there wouldn't be any art at all because they'd be beaten up. As for airily defending, the best way to avoid having an artist explain their art is not to ask them what it's about by saying, "I don't get it." It's such a neutral statement that it implies that you want an explanation. Artists don't get offended (at least I've never known them to) when people say they don't understand their work. Although, approaching them at all implies that you are looking for a dialog about it. Artists do get offended when someone passes uninformed judgments about it while attacking it or them. This again opens up a dialog where the artist tries to make the viewer into an informed viewer by offering an explanation.

Most viewers don't have an extensive knowledge of art and don't understand that shapes, colors, and textures, etc can have an emotional effect on people. You may not be the type of person who is moved by the abstract. You may be the kind of person who associates meaning only with things that you can directly relate to your experiences, like faces or scenes. This doesn't make you an ignorant monkey. In fact, since you can distinguish between appreciating and liking a work of art, that makes you way more informed than the average viewer. I don't know any artists, and I know hundreds, who seriously takes offense to having an open dialogue about their work depending on how they are approached. I've heard some viewers approach art with a nasty tone, mostly those insane snob types that you were commenting about earlier.

[ckd]

One might argue that cryptography is art, or is the antithesis of art. I think I could argue either side. Or both.

Indeed.

oooh art, my favorite

[dlusionlvr.livejournal.com]

I just want to start this off by saying that "you" does not mean you, Wex, I mean the undefined hypothetical "you>"
Art should not be deliberately obscure in its purpose of meaning or message.

By that definition, anything can still be art. When you are creating a piece of art, you are constantly having an internal dialogue with it. So the communication happens. Perhaps the statement (for thesis sake) can be narrowed down to, "Art should not be diliberately obscure to its intended audience in its purpose of meaning or message"

If I make a picture that no one but me gets is that a failure in my picture or in the viewing audience?

That depends solely on the purpose of the art and its intended audience. Art is a living thing. It doesn't have rules, only guidelines. There isn't a tipping point because things like "nobody gets it" and "everybody gets it" are difinitive rules. First of all, everybody wont see the piece so there's no way to even judge that. Also, putting yourself in that kind of mindframe is insulting to both you and the viewer. It devalues the intimate experience you had in making the art which involved inner dialogue, and also the viewer's personal interpretation. Their personal interpretation can comes from their own internal dialogue with the piece. The two of you are experiencing two different dialogues. Apples to Oranges. Even if they "get" it, that's more like macintosh to red delicious - both apples but different flavors, different experiences.

Is one form better than the other?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think works of art, like words, are not inherantly good or bad, worse or better. We, as people assign meaning and status.

That's my two cents.

Re: oooh art, my favorite

[drwex]

Fair enough. This is a more elaborate rejection of feste's assertion that art just "is" than I provided.

Re: oooh art, my favorite

[dlusionlvr.livejournal.com]

His statement also holds true. When I say it "depends solely on the purpose of the art" - in his mind, perhaps the art's purpose is just to exist. It exists, it develops naturally in people. It just is.

For me, art just is as well, but I choose to use it for other purposes. Personally, I need to make art to feel whole. The development of my art is a part of me. But to others, it just exists and it is successful at fulfilling its intended purpose just by existing.

Re: oooh art, my favorite

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

in his mind, perhaps the art's purpose is just to exist

In his mind, there is a world of difference between "art" and "the art".

Any work of art has a purpose which its creator created it for. That purpose can be anything from "This is what security looks like" to "I bet this juxtaposition of abstractions will fetch a huge bid at auction".

Art is. Art is a non-linear form of communication in many cases; art is a cathartic reaction in others. Art is expression, for the most part. But saying "The purpose of Art is to express" is subverted by retorts like "So any communication is Art?".

That retort cannot satisfactorially be answered with "The purpose of Art is to express that which cannot otherwise be communicated", because many "obvious" examples of Art say things which could easily have otherwise been stated.

Art just is. Be thankful. Use art to whatever purpose you wish.

[hlmt.livejournal.com]

The distinction between "high" art and "popular" art can also just be a difference of education. I don't think high art seeks to be obscure, merely that the referential range is much, much broader than pop culture. Which of course can lead to resentment on the part of an intelligent person who is denied meaning through merely lack of background, not ability to perform mind acrobatics.

Any art that is not meant to communicate with at least one person is masturbatory. Nothing wrong with that, but it's mostly fun for the perpetrator and a few voyeurs.

I generally find that art that is meant to "make the viewer think" is condescending, and generally ends up being dissatisfying art. For me, interesting art engenders a cascade of meaning and emotion, and tends to be accessible to a fairly wide audience. Hemingway didn't need to use multisyllabic vocabulary to get his points across; neither did Frost. And then, sometimes it's fun to play with syllables, too...

[sweetmmeblue.livejournal.com]

I think I have to disagree with the premise. Art is not for communication; art is for evocation. The purpose is to evoke emotions. If art is not "accessable" yes it can still be good. What's popular or not has no place in if you get it or not. The purpose in making art that only certain people will get it so that those who do can feel superior, renders the object dubious.