Many people make the argument that neither this...
Nor this...
...is art. Some people even go as far as to say that this abomination...
[Thomas Kinkade was here. I removed the photo so I won't get sued.]
This argument, as far as I am concerned, is as fallacious as claiming that the only REAL kind of communication is that which is verbal. This is, of course, ridiculous. Most communication is non-verbal. Some say 70%, others 90... Regardless of the actual percentage, what experts and (even marginally intelligent people) all seem to agree on is that some large percentage of our communication is done without the employ of phonemes, words, sentences, paragraphs, and really long, boring speeches.
My sudden thought, as I nod off at 3 in the afternoon, is that non-objective art (such as the Mondrian and the Pollock pictured above) is like non-verbal communication. Non-verbal communication is the communication of emotion, of feeling, of the sometimes deeper meaning behind words. (The Kinkade, using this same metaphor, is so "verbal" it makes my eyeballs sting.) John Singer Sargent, in this gem...
...is communicating the placidity of the lighting of Chinese lanterns by two little girls on a midsummer's eve. He does this by actually PAINTING said girls. Likewise, this painting...[another painting was here, but I removed it so as not to get sued. And because I didn't have the artist's permission.]
...though lacking anything truly representational*, besides little swirlies, communicates the same placidity to me in textures and colors.
Non-representational representation. Non-verbal communication. Is either less valid than their more representational/verbal counterparts?
"But what do Jackson Pollock's crazy drips of paint even MEAN?" You may ask. I don't know. Does it matter? Art, like any communication, is a two-way process anyway; meaning is created by both the artist and the viewer. And since, in some cases, it is impossible to know the artist's intended meaning, the only thing left to do is decide for ourselves what art means. To me, Jackson Pollock's work looks like it was done, if not angrily, at least passionately. I picture him standing over an enormous canvas furiously flinging each brushful of paint. "But, he could have been totally calm while painting" It doesn't matter, because what I see is Passion.
This Deep Thought was important to me because I have heretofore been largely unmoved by modern, non-objective art. I didn't really consider the point of it. But now I want to see it all. I want to see, and attempt to understand, the artists' "non-verbal" communication. Is Mondrian communicating Boredom? Conformity? Simplicity? If so, he is doing a first-rate job.
I do not consider words to be the only valid form of communication. So, why would I limit my understanding of art to only that which is representational?
Now, back to my nap.
*I use "representational" here to indicate visual art that portrays recognizable objects.
4 comments:
Love the analogy. :)
another thing to consider, especially regarding so-called modern art is the historical context in which it was created, the world in which the artist is communicating and what that has to do with his or her style of communication.
Recently my wife and I went to Liminaria here in San Antonio. It is this huge nigh time art festival. There are something like 12 stages with bands switching every 2 hours. Other stages with performance art, sculpture, temporary galleries thrown up, food booths, life size puppet shows done to the lights and sounds of Lesbian Motorcyclists of Texas, poetry readings to nonsensical jazz, you name it.
Afterwords we tried to define art, as daunting as it may be. Keep in mind, a good definition would be able to capture all thins that are art, while dismissing all things that aren't, while being as specific as possible so as to lend general principles to things that may fall in between. This is what we got: "A medium of communication or expression of thoughts, ideas, or emotions which benefits either creator, recipient or both." Art must express or communicate something, and that something must be of value to someone. How do you think we did? Anything you would add or criticize? Defining art is very difficult i have found.
I think that's a pretty good shot at a definition, Seth. It also occurs to me that part of the definition of Art is that it defies definition. ;)
Post a Comment