Do our Conversations about Art miss the Point?
Yes. Yes, they do.
Art is a wonderful thing, it excites the passions, cultivates the mind, widens the horizons, awakens the soul, transports one to new worlds… and causes hundreds of heated arguments.
Debates don’t occur over things which are either (a) obvious or (b) worthless. No one argues over whether a good host would put arsenic in his guest’s tea (it’s obvious that he wouldn’t) and no one would argue that we should hoard Mars bar wrappers as if they were made of gold dust (because that too is obvious).
Art, however, is neither obvious nor worthless. Hence, debates in this field are as common as the seagulls which steal your chips on the seafront. Everyone, professional art critics, casual viewers, philosophers, artists and every Tom, Dick and Harry has an opinion.
Now there are two types of art appreciator in London. The first prefers the National Art Gallery and the second prefers the Tate Modern. I’ve been to both galleries and I can safely say that I am of the first variety.
Broadly speaking, the first type believe there are criteria, standards which a work has to meet to become art. And broadly speaking again, the second type believe art is whatever we wish to call art. These are both massive simplifications but the categorisations will suffice for our purposes.
What is not such a massive simplification is the breed of argument these critics have when they make contact. The discourse is clichéd to the point of profound boredom and sophisticated irritation; arguments develop along these lines:
“X is not art because it does not achieve Y. X is rubbish… literally.”
“And why should Y be the attribute which qualifies something as a work of art? Why couldn’t the standard be Z? X achieves Z therefore art.”
“Y should be the standard because it reflects a real truth about existence and being.”
“Who defines what truth is? And isn’t “being” multimodal and multifaceted?”
All these arguments end in nothing but disagreement. The contention is always how one defines art; what makes something a work of art rather than a mere thing?
The debate itself is not fruitless in the abstract but, in more practical discussion, it straitjackets the discourse and prevents discussion of what really matters.
A Question of Added Value
A teacher once told me: “Never ask if it is art. Ask what it adds to the world of art.”
At first, I thought this was a cop-out. A way of avoiding the highly cerebral arguments and heated debates of the art world. But after engaging and witnessing these debates for years, I see the wisdom in my teacher’s words. Because it cuts to the point of the entire discussion. The reason we discuss art is because we want to understand what it means, what it says, what it adds to the world. We wouldn’t talk about art at all, if it weren’t fundamentally important.
A demonstration will assist in demonstrating the worth of my teacher’s question. This is a photograph of Number 5 by Jackson Pollock:
It is tempting to exclaim “That’s not art… it’s a mess!” and start spieling to anyone who disagrees with you. However, such an action will not result in a fruitful discussion but instead turn into the same lifeless exchange of talking points common to these debates.
According to my old teacher, a better question would be: “Why is it good? What does it mean? What does it add to the world?” This has the potential to stump an intellecutal opponent and make him think through his position and give you a thoughtful answer.
By sidestepping the debate about what criteria must be met to for something to be art, you can go straight to the question of meaning and value. In the context of Pollock’s work, this could kick-start an interesting discussion as he thought the reader was responsible for interpreting value and meaning from his art.
Furthermore, this line of questioning has a real chance of completely decimating certain artworks. Not Jackson Pollock’s works necessarily but pieces such as this:
It is possible to write a long and convoluted placard explaining the value of these works (such a placard accompanies this piece) but it is much harder to argue those same points in the verbal medium. The more one tries to discern what this piece has added to the western art world, the more one realises how truly pointless it is. To be blunt, it is kitsch and Craig-Martin is a kitsch-dealer.
On the other end of the spectrum we have this:
Five part piece, top from left to right: The Savage State, The Arcadian or Pastoral State, The Consummation, Destruction, Desolation.
In the singular, each painting has clear meaning but together a story unfolds before the viewer’s eyes. The collective artwork is a social, civilizational and historiographic commentary on empire and human civilization. One can dismiss the message of the work but to dismiss the work itself is simply impossible — a group of artists could discuss Thomas Cole’s The Course of Empire ad infinitum.
The Course of Empire and An Oak Tree are not comparable. Craftsmanship and meaning exist in one while both are absent in the other. Suffice to say one is a fine addition to western canon while the other is not.
The Takeaway
Getting trapped in discussions about what makes something an artwork is a poor fate for both the art critic and the casual art appreciator. People don’t go to art galleries, cinemas or read books in order to make contact with “art” but instead to discover meaning and encounter new experiences. Most perhaps do not understand what they are seeking, but very few will put down a novel or return from a film and then ask “But is it art?” Their question is nearly always “Did I enjoy it? Was it good?”
People seek meaning in art, which takes numerous forms, but the essence of meaning is not the subject of debate among art critics who have a duty to provide the uninitiated access to the art world. Instead of delving into the issues of meaning and value, critics replay the old tape of “But is it art?” without any concern as to whether it reaps intellectual fruits.
As far as debates go, it is a comfortable park walk, but explaining what makes something a meaningful addition to the art world is an intellectual mountain climb. Thus, most critics seem content to stay in the park.
Arguing over whether a can of coke hanging upside-down is art or not is a near-pointless endeavour. Don’t waste energy. Concede that the can of coke is art and then ask the important question:
“What does it mean? And what does it add to the world of art?”
