I'd be lying if i said this subject did not take up a lot of my brain space. I guess it's important to me since i feel the need to justify why it is i do what i do (or want to do!) I've tried to be one of those people that says the meaning of it all doesn't matter. If you can make a beautiful piece of work for the sake of it's beauty and feel no need or reason to justify it's creation and existence, then that is ok...I, however, have failed at that. I cannot, as hard as i try, just do the work.
I don't remember ever having to think about it because ever since art always had meaning. It was just another way of expressing my emotion and is an important extension of who i am. I know there were times that i used to paint something because it "looked cool" but there were also times that i jumped out of my bedroom window with a bottle of liquor at midnight because i wanted to be cool. We do things in our evolution as a person that simply does not make sense. Immaturity and ignorance will do that to a person.
Music and art were always an integral part of my life growing up. It was pure and raw back than. No one questioned how or why i did what i did and now that i am older, i wouldn't expect anything more from a person who teaches secondary level art classes. No insult intended, it's just through my experiences at that time that i came to form such an opinion about art taught at the secondary level. I had always believed in art and it's importance, but I had no confidence in myself as an artist back then, and it wasn't until college when i truly though, hey, i think i may have something here. Sure, i was not the perfect technician, but i realized there was something behind what i was doing that many of my peers (a) didn't have, and (b) had no understanding why they should have.
I was struggling with a pretty severe and debilitating anxiety disorder around that time but it was when i was making my art or debating about art that i was alive and invigorated. I had one art history class in particular that sealed the deal for me in terms of meaning in art. It brought two major truths to my attention, which are (1) that life imitates art and (2) the role of art as a record of humanity.
Art Imitates Life
If art is supposed to imitate life, than it should be full of meaning. Do you fall in love just to fall in love? Do you have a child just for the sake of creating a life? I think there are people that do this. Most of us fall in love because we've found a person we really connect with and we deeply care for that person and want to create a life with them...because we want a meaningful existence. We want a purpose, we want to love and be loved back, we want to be good people and be successful and raise a happy family. All of the things that life is about. If art imitates life, then this is what art should be about. Connecting, loving, giving, receiving, sharing, experiencing, emotions, etc...
So is art without meaning considered art at all? Is there any art without meaning? The person doing the creating must have had some intention of portraying a thought or a feeling just in the act of wanting to create the piece. For example, some critics may say that a beautiful piece of pottery stands as a craft and not a piece of art. I tend to disagree. I have been in the presence of beautiful works of pottery that connects to me on an emotional level due to the content of it's form and beauty. Do we have a right to judge the content of the art? Do we judge the content of a person's life. Definitely.
Art is a record of humanity.
Art is a record of our life, our culture, our society, our world at this moment in time in the existence of human life. Open up an art history book and you are getting both a visual and written history on the world. I believe a person can gain more knowledge from looking at art history. You get all the facts in regular history books, but with art history, you get to experience the state of the world's cultures and events on a very personal and emotional level. Future generations will look back on art created in this time and see our political views, our ways of life, our cultural rituals, etc... It will portray what was happening in history and what our hopes and dreams are for our future as a human race. Art is a permanent thread in the fabric of life. A reflection of who we are as a people. So if there are people who want to make "empty art" or simply art for art's sake then so be it. That is simply a reflection of who that person is and that person is a part of our culture and society as much as the next.
In saying that, the interpretation of our society through art may not be so literal. For example, if i look at Duchamp's "Fountain" piece of 1917 in a literal translation, i would think that artists were really into displaying urinals as art. And that is obviously not the case. But when i look at this piece and analyze the social and cultural trends of that time, this piece represents an important movement in the the way people began to perceive art and life at that time. If a urinal is accepted as a piece of art, than anything must be acceptable as art. Then art does not have to have beauty or meaning, in fact, it is grotesque and meaningless. And that certainly is the testimony of the piece. If we look at the whole lot of artists doing art for art's sake at this period of post-modernism, than we see that there was a whole cultural movement of art for art's sake. And if life imitates art, than what does this say about life...it is ok to live life without purpose or meaning and that's exactly what we accept and do. We do what we want, when we want, and how we want. We are selfish and do not care about content, morality. or consequences. And trust me, i am not on the verge of spouting out about religion and morality, etc...in fact, i am agnostic verging on atheist, however, i am speaking about the state of humanity.
Recently i have been watching a show called "the next great artist" (and trust me, it is anything but that!) that again has ignited a fire inside me about the content of art. To me, it's simple. The contestants must fulfill challenges in order to move ahead and ultimately becoming the "next great artist" (haha!) One challenge stands out in which the artists were instructed to use child hood art supplies and inspirations to create a meaningful piece about how their childhood influenced the person/artist that they are today. One of the artists drew a bunch of small symbols (nike, ying/yang, sports logos, etc...) because that is what his classmates would ask him to do in school because he was the "artist kid". Is it me, or did that challenge completely blow over his head? Is that a sign of how empty we are becoming as people? There was nothing thoughtful or meaningful about that at all. If that person is going to become "the next great artist" then i am scared for art!
Another thing that sparked me on this show was a statement by a "famous New York painter" by the name of Richard Phillips who was a guest judge. He advised one of the contestants, who was having concerns about how her art would connect with her viewers, that "she should not worry about the viewer." If you just worry about connecting with yourself then you'll magically connect with the viewer. I feel bad for that poor girl who was given such a horrible piece of advice. If art imitates life, is that how you live your life? By not worrying about what anyone else thinks/feels? Just worrying about yourself. Sadly, this seems to run rampant in our culture and is definitely reflected in art that we see today. I always think about the viewer, I do not create art for my own self indulgent wants. I create art to connect with other people and i think about everyone including myself, my children and family, and any person who may view the piece.
I think i will always struggle with this debate inside my head and heart. But, i am definitely coming into a better place about what art means not only to me, but to our society as a whole. I am constantly seeking new challenges and running into new questions on this topic. For instance, can we ever answer the question "what is art?" It may not be meant to be answered. Maybe categorizing and judging art would take away everything about art that makes it so mysterious and wonderful; the freedom to express oneself in any medium and realm imaginable. But there certainly are some constant truths that cannot be denied: humans will never be able to be without art; art and life imitate each other and art is a reflection of who we are as a society. Life and art are constantly challenging, and evolving alongside each other and one cannot survive without the other. I know a little more about what art means to me. It makes me connect to people and humanity and become an empathetic person. Art also allows me to express and understand my own thoughts and emotions, so in turn, i can evolve and grow as a person. By searching for meaning in life through art and looking for meaning in art through life i have become more enlightened of how and why people feel about and experience life. And i think that is what we all strive for in the end...not so much in understanding our literal questions and wonders about life, but connecting to others about the things in life matter the most to us. And this is why we create and express ourselves in such a manner; this is art.
3 comments:
Tina, a person could write a book on the topics you touch upon so eloquently here.
The question "what is art?", to me, must be answered in the broadest and most open-minded way possible....however, with one caveat with which I believe you will agree. I have a problem with people whose definition leans too much to the "self-expression" end and too far from the "communication" end.
I take umbrage at self-absorbed, narcissisic artists who feel they have no responsibility to convey meaning to others. (I personally also don't enjoy art that has no esthetic element, that is, approachable beauty, but I admit that's a personal bias; "ugly" art can be art too, I just don't like it much!)
So, I've had problems with the times on "Work of Art" when the artists only care about getting their feelings out and don't care if they convey a message of any kind to the viewer. I don't think you need to convey every precise nuance to others, but at least your work should evoke some sort of vaguely consistent reaction.
And I also believe that even if that reaction is something as simple as "Oh, that's beautiful to look at," that's fine! The other sort of artist/art critic that bugs me is the sort that looks down at art that is merely esthetically pleasant. There's that snobbist attitude that separates "art" from "crafts" on this basis. I draw no such distinction, nor I think do you. A beautifully shaped and colored piece of pottery brings joy into the world and ought to be honored with the term "art."
I would say the same about all manner of visual creations: graphic novels, jewelry, flower arranging, costume design, etc.
Now, specifically to comment on the show: I wasn't so incensed by Abdi's childhood art project as you were. His recurring problem seems to be panicking over figuring out a way to meet the challenge, and I think he just struggled with the assignment. I agree he did fail at it, but not in such a way that led me to think he couldn't have succeeded, had he not taken a very wrong turn early in the process.
But I totally agree with you that "You shouldn't worry about the viewer" is awful, maddening advice! That summed up a lot of what I object to in some art criticism right there, as I said above. Some people also feel they should write books that way, and it likewise irks me because it's like saying, "No one in the Universe matters but me." Do that if you plan to let no one but yourself read/see your work. But if you want it to be public, you can't operate that way.
For this same reason, I hate the snooty attitude that is so often expressed towards commercial artists. On the show, it was sometimes demonstrated towards Mark. I have tremendous admiration for people who use the visual arts to communicate a specific message to as large a portion of the population as possible (which is what commercial art is). It requires a skill set far less common than simply being good at drawing or sculpture.
So that's my twenty cents. I think we think very similarly about this subject. I would consider you and Josh more of artists and me more of an artisan, but I don't draw a hard borderline between the two, and frankly, don't see any reason why one needs to!
yes, i think there are books written on many of these topics. I have been thinking about meaning in art a lot lately since watching the next great artist. It is almost overwhelming to think of all of the possiblities in art. Thanks for the feedback, it is much appreciated!
Post a Comment