Thinking about Art V - Exercise of Self-doubt

This is a tough one. The question "what is art?" has generated and will continue to generate a lot of debate and controversy. I believe that art is not different, no, is identical to literature in the sense that it is a means of communication but instead of using words to create images and communicate feelings or thoughts it uses visual means and images. It is hard to judge the merit of any given piece of literature or art because this evaluation is subjective. Good art is that which creates and evokes emotions in the viewer regardless of what was the intent of the artist at the moment of creating the piece. The failure to create or evoke emotions, however, does not mean that art is not good.
We often try to complicate matters by over analyzing and looking for deeper meaning than what may be obvious. We try to guess what the artist means and in the process obfuscate all meaning. I go with first reactions which compel me then to either take a second look or simply walk away. In this latter case the piece fails to create or evoke an emotion or thought and therefore there is a failure of communication. However that is not necessarily the fault of the piece but it could most likely be that I the viewer fail to decode the symbols and the messages which most certainly are the product of the culture and experience I carry with me. Therefore my failure should not become a judgment as to the absolute value or merit: I simply do not like a piece but it still is art.

I want to make clear something before going on. The purpose of this exercise is not judging how Mr/Mrs X act BUT to understand WHY WE act in front of a piece of art in a gallery. Two very different things. So, those readers who were fearing any other thing... whatever that may be, don't be afraid. This is an exercise of self-doubt, not an exercise of judgement of you. Ookee?

Thanks a lot AREF for your reply and my apologies for not replying to you earlier. I share many of the things you say. The example of the friends shows attitudes that are well spread in our society. Usually I'm more like Jack (like you), but I've found myself sometimes acting as the other friends, especially when I was very young. I'm more like Jack because, personally, I like pieces that make me think and I like to transcend what I have in front of my eyes; however, I don't want to spend half an hour transcending either :D. I am also very intuitive, and I love certain hues and textures, some ideas evoke great things in me and others don't, some images move me deeply and others don't. I also agree that many times we over-think a piece of art, sometimes too much, and this can't be good. If somebody has to be an hour in front of an sculpture or a painting to get something from the piece, something is wrong with me... or with the piece...

Your comment brings many questions to my mind, Aref. Thanks for that. I would like to know your opinion on them.

1/ If we agree that over-thinking a piece of art is not good. Why should be good that somebody else does the thinking for us, like in an explanatory leaflet?

2/ If the piece of art fails to evoke emotions HOW do we know that the art is good? Or if the piece fails to evoke thoughts HOW do we know the art is good?

3/ If a piece depends on an explanation to be considered art, couldn’t we do the opposite, the artist of the gallery build something, a silly fake explanation masked by bubbly words, just for the sake of selling, and fool everybody?

4/ If most people fail to decode the codes of the chair in this example, should the critic, the gallery or the art seller think that there is something wrong with the piece? Or not? What about the opposite, if everybody likes this ensemble by an unknown artist but the "artistic counsellors" don't, shouldn't the gallery consider it twice?

1/ Why should it be good that somebody else does the thinking for us, like an explanatory leaflet?
I am not sure it is a good thing that somebody does the thinking. I am inclined to think that it is not a good thing. However, having said that, it might sometimes be helpful. Unless we have studied Art history and are quite up to speed on the various trends and movements we might miss certain elements which are crucial to understanding the piece of art. At the same time I wonder if this is really important to the appreciation of art? Again I am inclined to say no. Understanding appeals to the intellect. For me Art is not simply an intellectual exercise: it is an experience which involves emotions, tangible or not. You mention, colors and texture and that is the first thing that a person reacts to in the visual arts and if those don't beg you to take a second look I don't think that any amount of intellectualisation (is this a word?) will make you really appreciate the work. Am I wrong?

2/ We simply know it because it evokes emotions or thoughts and we want to go back and revisit the art over and over again. It is not different than knowing that you are in love. You just know it. Now not everybody might think that a given piece is "good art" Frankly who cares? I think Art is something very subjective. It happens sometimes that many people of varying tastes and background appreciate the same thing and that's what makes something really great. I am always skeptical because there is always--maybe a fair amount?--of snobbish pretentiousness in Art appreciation, especially when some supposed expert says that this or that piece is great. Do you think that all those collectors really appreciate the art they buy? I think that most of them--or at least a great many--do it as an investment.

3/ of course they do. this goes back to what I said above.

4/ No. When the Dada movement started for example only a handful of people appreciated the plays, the performances, the quirky art, etc...A huge fuss ensued when Marcel Duchamp put the infamous bottle rack that he bought at a store and called it "art". The whole idea was to challenge the concept of art and it took people a while to get to understand the point. The same thing with Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring". I am always wary of the experts.
Galleries want to sell stuff and if something does not sell they will not carry it but it does not mean that it has no merit. As in every thing there are fads in Art.

AREF, thanks a million again!!

POINT ONE. “At the same time I wonder if this is really important to the appreciation of art?” Yes, I make myself the same question. The explanation always helps the “lay” observer… and the observer most of the time believes so, and is happy with it. I think that most people delegate in other to make the thinking or give the explanation for them, because the experts know better (?) and because, in this way they don’t have to even think (!). There is a naivety in this delegation, believing that those who do the explaining do so without interest. I also find that there is a lot of abstract and obscure language in some explanations and descriptions, so people get lost; therefore, they think it is their fault that they don’t understand, and that the “thingy” must be truly good. It is a fine line the one separating the explanatory leaflet from the inducing leaflet. 5/ AREF, Do you think if there wasn’t an Art Market the explanatory leaflets would be as important as they are now? Would do really matter that we understood what we are seeing?

POINT TWO. – I agree with most of what to say except for the “Now not everybody might think that a given piece is "good art" Frankly who cares?” I DO! There is market of art out there, there are art galleries supporting certain art and artists, there are governments giving grants to projects and artists. I want those arts and artists supported and exhibited to be good, more than good! The question to me is, 6/ Which criteria do we/they use to make the selection since art is in a great part subjective (and more than ever with Postmodernism)? 7/ Which criteria do we use to make the selection if art is sold like doughnuts (so to speak)? I don't know. 8/ AREF, Do you think that it would be as important as it is now to explain the piece of art if there wasn’t a market of art and museums were all free institutions without any sort of marketing?

POINT THREE. Ookee Okeefooky ;D

POINT FOUR. Yes, you make a good point about the galleries. I didn’t intend to say that all pieces sold or exhibited at the galleries are crap, but just that the galleries ignores many things that sometimes are better or more revolutionary. I've seen things on Flickr that are as good or better than things with similar subjects or concepts as exhibited and published. Sometimes if you aren't part of that market, the market doesn't give a cent for you unless it is clear to them that you are marketable. It is true what you say about the Dada, and about many artists of the past. The urinal is my fav piece "by Duchamp" :D The thing is that Duchamp never said that his urinal was art, actually his discourse about art used the urinal as a key element to demonstrate his “point”, to mock the academia. 9/ AREF a final question (you can say yaiiiii now, :D) , in case Duchapm's urinal was still available, do you think it should be exhibited?

That is all for now. Looking forward to your opinions. Thanks in advance.

Hellowwwwwwww PEEPHOLERSSSSSS, come out and participate. YOU CAN DO IT :O It is SIMPLE. Read the description of the piece of art in my story. Imagine it in your head. Now, tell me, what ideas would come to your mind (of any sort) if you were in a museum seeing this non-existent piece of art. How would you react? Thanksiessssssssss

It is my pleasure. I love discussions like this because really there is no right or wrong answer but makes for passionate exchange of ideas.

1- Would it be important or even relevant to explain a piece of work in the absence of an Art market? I don't know. I am not sure if it is the market per se or the egos of artists and art historians which make explanations "necessary" to enlighten the "lay" people. I think a lot of Art appreciation, real or pretentious, has to do with class. Art has been the domain of the elite aristocracy and the bourgeois aspiring to belong to the elite class had to affect an understanding and appreciation of Art. However, many of those art affectionados (sp?) could care less about Art (some did) and to appear knowledgeable they had to had the piece explained to them. With the democratization of the Arts and the desire of many who truly might have appreciated Art but lacked the education and necessary background explanation became necessary. However, it seems that the underlying purpose is maybe to entice people to buy the Art or driven by ego and self-promotion at the intellectual level. Am I generalizing? Maybe.
Does it matter if we understood a particular piece of art to appreciate it? I would categorically say no. There are many pieces that I just love and I am not ashamed or feel diminished by saying that I do not understand them. As I have mentioned earlier, Art is not dissociated form culture and its symbols. There are universal elements to be sure but often times other elements which are particular to a given culture can be very mysterious and indecipherable to some people who are not familiar with the culture and so explanation here maybe necessary but not essential for enjoying or appreciating any given piece.

2- I don't like the word "good" or "bad" when used in association with art. The reason for that is that those designations are very subjective. What I consider "bad" most others may consider "good"? Who is "right" and who is "wrong"? I certainly understand what you are saying and fully agree, and that is precisely the problem with designating Art as "good" or "bad" because then there are the pundits who come along, make the rules and label things.
As for the "selling" of Art, I think that is where the problem lies. Art becomes a commodity and people buy things because they either like them or because they think of it as an investment (that's usually the case with Art: people hope that the piece of art they buy will become valuable someday). The importance of the pundits and the labeling increases because of that. The blame does not always lie with those pundits, gallery owners, etc... but artists themselves share some of the blame because we attach too much importance to their opinions and the opinions of others. Just look at sites like ipernity and flickr. We are here to show our work and to get positive comments to make us feel good about our creations--at least I do get a boost when several people think my work is good or great even if I know that for some it is a cliche they use with the hope of reciprocity (not being kind am i?) So yes designating art as "good" or "bad" is tied to the marketing of Art and to a society divided into classes of privileged elites, aspiring to be, and the underclass of ordinary people who could care less about the "great" artists but nonetheless appreciate a work of art because it speaks to them.

3- I did not mean that all pieces sold in galleries are crap--not at all. I agree that a lot of art is ignored because galleries don't think that they can sell it and make money on it. This is the crux of the problem I think: the commercialisation of Art and its transformation from a means of expression into a commodity subject to the rules of the market. That is the problem not only for art but for many other aspects of our modern society: everything can be bought and sold. What is the alternative though? Well, I have my opinion but that would be for another discussion--I suppose you can guess what my thinking leads to :)
Ah yes the urinal. Should it be exhibited? Well yes it should be as a reminder to everyone that art is a process not a product. It is a way of thinking, seeing, writing or expressing something. Does this make any sense?

Finally I want to reiterate your request for others to join in the discussion. There are no rights or wrongs just opinions and take those opinions for what they are worth: you can agree or disagree but without an exchange of ideas things can't change. We individually and collectively cannot evolve and progress. That is the dialectic nature of life. So don't be shy jump in.

Thanks a lot AREF. Sorry I haven't been able to come and reply to your comment properly until now. I find your comment very articulate and interesting and I agree with most of what you say.

To me argumentation and discussion is also a passionate exchange of ideas and a way of using our brains, making our minds, and enriching our point of view with that of others. Something that most people aren't interested in doing most of the time. Many people feel threatened and wronged if their opinion is not prevalent or if somebody discuses what they say. Despite everything, these entries on art have given me a great deal of satisfaction and I consider them a reflection of the great people "living" on Ipernity. I haven't found that depth of thought among most flickerians.

1/ I agree with you re the egos of the artists being sometimes (too many times) too big. Everybody is the new Picasso. The art market is guilty of making a produce of contemporary art. Artists are, of course,part of the problem if they don't take a step back. The system has turned artists into a bunch of snobs who act in the way the system expects. Many artists are very happy being part of a system that encumbers them and that plays with them, just for the sake of their egos (not just for the sake of their living). However, being generous, I think that they are also victims, like abducted by a system that plays with them and most of the time don't care about their art per se.

It is true that, until recently, Art has been a domain of the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, and, in our modern society, a comodity and an investment. There is a TV show on Sundays in Australia devoted to small businesses and businessmen, and this morning the program opened with something horrifying "invest in art". They were talking about art as they could have been talking about oranges or bananas, or gold, as it was a piece of gold coming from a mine. I thought of our discussion in this entry.

On the other hand, the biggest collectors of Art of our times are not only those who collect masterpieces (deceased Baron Von Thiesen and his sons, for ex.), but those who collect pieces of art of artists who are already becoming known and part of the system, and those of styles who they think will increase their market value. I wonder if these investors are clever enough at choosing pieces that will be of artistic relevance in 100 years' time.

Also generalising, I think that, despite everything, the main purpose of the market of art is to sell art, not to exchange art, ideas or be a path for discussion, new tendencies, subversion,experimentation. Even innovation is canalised to suit the needs of the market or the galleries, or the editorial houses. For example, there are dozen of documentaries or books on Art History that don't even consider Africa or the Middle East, or Muslim contemporary artists who aren't politically correct. There is a lot of hypocrisy too of what we consider subversive in the Western World and outside it.

I don't agree with you completely about the role of Art History and art historians, though. Art History is mostly a way of teaching how tendencies, styles, theories and artists have changed from the origin of times to the present, put in a context, in which real elements of differentiation are given to separate a style from other, an era from another, an artist from another. It is true that, sometimes (too many times perhaps), there is interpretation and "enlightenment" for the lay people. It is inevitable that in the case anonymous artists, or artists who haven't left any comments on their relevant works, and on "Prehistoric arts" when the "prehistoric artists" aren't here to tell us what is the meaning (if any) of their paintings. I've never considered Art -properly speaking- those prehistoric paintings, but magic elements, recordings, ways of expression, "material culture". It sounds obscene to many, as if Art was God and material culture just Evil. Material culture, artefacts can be beautiful and artistic despite no being art of conceived to being exhibited at the Louvre or the British Museum, even if they are exhibited there.

2/ About the bad-good thing, Yes, if something is subjective how can be good or bad? Who is Mr/Mrs X to tell me that the painting I love and moves me is just a shitty piece of art? However, if you paint, say a realistic piece of a human figure, a nude, the technique can be good or bad, the proportions and perspective can be good or bad, the lighting and shadows can be correct or incorrect, artificial or "natural". Post-modernism and the value of the thought, the concept, the freedom of expression in style, techniques etc. (which I love, by the way) has as counterpart (which I don't like at all) -- that anybody who doesn't know how to paint can be a painter, he needs just an idea. Just to focus on painting. So much so that we find extremely gifted drawers or painters who are ignored despite those artists being still amazing, and extremely intuitive artists who are also ignored for not being thoughtful enough.

My question on the good-bad thing revolved just about the criteria set to value a piece, especially if the piece is going to be paid, exhibited or founded in an honest competition. Some elements are more subject to objectivity in art than others. Art, fortunately, is not Mathematics. But not being so, and the market being so powerful, we are in the middle of a situation that I don't like in which the "experts" can do (and in fact do) whatever they want.

3/ "What is the alternative though? Well, I have my opinion but that would be for another discussion--I suppose you can guess what my thinking leads to"
NOT REALLY, TELL US EVERYTHING.
I'm somewhat stuck in this point myself because market is a reality that is part of our way of living. We cannot wave off the market, so the artist or artists should have the strength not to play the game, not to sell pieces if their are going to get marketed in a way that is not appropriate or by somebody who doesn't care about the art, its message (if any) or what the artist really wants to communicate, not just in making making money out of it.

I think that the artist should be more subversive. But, hey, many of those modern people who present themselves as such, who are marketed as such, are, at the end of the day, as snob and burgeois as the rest they criticise. To me the power of being an individual is underestimated by most individuals, not only in Art. I suppose that the market and the masses are part of the same thing, two extremes tightly connected. But, I haven't devoted much thought to this, to tell you the truth.

I'm really interested in your opinion on this AREF, even if I you don't comment straight away (or I don't reply straight away either).

MY WISH - I would like to have a magic ball to see how the Art of the next century is, if anything has changed, the tendencies in vogue, the colours and styles, the new theories, the new artists, who is the "Picasso" of the 21st century.

Anybody out there willing to confess which friend of the story he/she relates to the most? Or say anything about this entry? Otherwise... bring me the magic ball pleaseeeeeeeeee!