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 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.