I recently attended an art crawl sponsored by our local community. They do this every first Friday of the month, and apparently it's very well attended. The weather here in the Pacific Northwest has turned cool and damp, which means that it's not as well attended as it is when it's warmer. But there were still plenty of people walking about and enjoying the evening.
I went with a couple of friends, and one of them and I stopped in front of a particular piece of art. I forget which, and it's kind of irrelevant. But I asked her - what do you think of this piece? She said she didn't like it. I pursued - what is it about this piece that you don't like? She said she wasn't sure, but that she just didn't like it. She was obviously a little uncomfortable and worried about sounding silly or being offensive. I pointed out that the artist was 40 years in her grave, and wouldn't be offended. I also encouraged her to share what she felt as a result of looking at the piece. She said that she liked the colors of the piece, but that the overall tone and feel of the work was less appealing. I reassured her that this was a perfectly acceptable response to the work, and that she had every right to feel the way she did.
I pointed out some of the different aspects of the work, noting the way some of the colors were very solid and uniform, while others were mottled and you could see the various brush strokes. I asked her if she thought that was intentional or a mistake. She wasn't sure - there's no way to be sure of the artist's intention at this point. But I suggested that it was intentional. I pointed out how the lines wanted to be clear, clean, and precise, as was matching with the overall geometric feel of the piece. Yet, the lines were not crisp, but were clearly reflective of the artist's own hand as it moved across the canvas, jittering and sketchy. The curves were not accurate, but felt as though it were in motion. I suggested that these things were not mistakes, either. I said that clearly the artist intended the piece to look this way. The question is why, to what end? And what does it do to the viewer?
Le Corbusier said that the highest and most basic function of art is to elicit an emotional response. Even dislike or hatred of a piece is an emotional response, and is therefore valid. Sometimes (usually) the response that the artist intends is what is conveyed. But even if it is not - after all, every experience with art is unique, both in relation to the time and to the viewer - as long as it does SOMETHING, the art may be considered successful.
Much has been made about the so-called shock art. Some art is very obvious, and makes people uncomfortable. But why is that? What is the intent? What is the result? Does it inform? Does it elevate? Does it cause reflection? Does it create a stir? How do you measure success?
This is true of even more common-place art forms. Graffiti artists use the canvas and paints that they are familiar with. Rap artists are the same. These folks are not given slabs of marble or tightly stretched canvases to work with. Yet they find expression in the way they're familiar with, using the palette and media that are available to them. We may not like what they do, and we may be angered or revolted by it, but in my mind it is very much the same thing, expressive of the desire to creatively express one's self, in the hopes of generating an emotional response in others.
My preference is for art that creates an atmosphere of contemplation, that pulls me in and makes me think, that speaks to me on many levels, and can be considered at different scales. I like to notice the overall piece, then look at the details, and then pull back and look at the way the details help create and inform the whole. It's a process of exploration, and I think it says as much about myself as it does the artist.
And I believe we are all artists, we just work in different media.
I went with a couple of friends, and one of them and I stopped in front of a particular piece of art. I forget which, and it's kind of irrelevant. But I asked her - what do you think of this piece? She said she didn't like it. I pursued - what is it about this piece that you don't like? She said she wasn't sure, but that she just didn't like it. She was obviously a little uncomfortable and worried about sounding silly or being offensive. I pointed out that the artist was 40 years in her grave, and wouldn't be offended. I also encouraged her to share what she felt as a result of looking at the piece. She said that she liked the colors of the piece, but that the overall tone and feel of the work was less appealing. I reassured her that this was a perfectly acceptable response to the work, and that she had every right to feel the way she did.
I pointed out some of the different aspects of the work, noting the way some of the colors were very solid and uniform, while others were mottled and you could see the various brush strokes. I asked her if she thought that was intentional or a mistake. She wasn't sure - there's no way to be sure of the artist's intention at this point. But I suggested that it was intentional. I pointed out how the lines wanted to be clear, clean, and precise, as was matching with the overall geometric feel of the piece. Yet, the lines were not crisp, but were clearly reflective of the artist's own hand as it moved across the canvas, jittering and sketchy. The curves were not accurate, but felt as though it were in motion. I suggested that these things were not mistakes, either. I said that clearly the artist intended the piece to look this way. The question is why, to what end? And what does it do to the viewer?
Le Corbusier said that the highest and most basic function of art is to elicit an emotional response. Even dislike or hatred of a piece is an emotional response, and is therefore valid. Sometimes (usually) the response that the artist intends is what is conveyed. But even if it is not - after all, every experience with art is unique, both in relation to the time and to the viewer - as long as it does SOMETHING, the art may be considered successful.
Much has been made about the so-called shock art. Some art is very obvious, and makes people uncomfortable. But why is that? What is the intent? What is the result? Does it inform? Does it elevate? Does it cause reflection? Does it create a stir? How do you measure success?
This is true of even more common-place art forms. Graffiti artists use the canvas and paints that they are familiar with. Rap artists are the same. These folks are not given slabs of marble or tightly stretched canvases to work with. Yet they find expression in the way they're familiar with, using the palette and media that are available to them. We may not like what they do, and we may be angered or revolted by it, but in my mind it is very much the same thing, expressive of the desire to creatively express one's self, in the hopes of generating an emotional response in others.
My preference is for art that creates an atmosphere of contemplation, that pulls me in and makes me think, that speaks to me on many levels, and can be considered at different scales. I like to notice the overall piece, then look at the details, and then pull back and look at the way the details help create and inform the whole. It's a process of exploration, and I think it says as much about myself as it does the artist.
And I believe we are all artists, we just work in different media.
Comments