For what purpose, art?
Apr. 27th, 2006 11:00 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drwexYesterday, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 04:56 pm (UTC)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....)
no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 06:00 pm (UTC)*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?
no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 06:09 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 08:51 pm (UTC)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*
Date: 2006-04-27 06:57 pm (UTC)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.