(no subject)
This is rather art-nerdy.
The class I'm taking with Gonzales is quite thought provoking, especially considering I've been going through something of an existential crisis. What, I ask myself, is the point of art? What is the point of studying art at a UC which focuses on academic and conceptual growth rather than technical and economically marketable skill?
As I understand it, classically art was about beauty. Realism was the popular aesthetic, religion the mandatory topic if you were to keep the church as a patron. Then with the metaphorical death of God and birth of the industry, art is defined by self discovery, newness, revolutionary thought. In an perverse reversal, the art world states (in my readings, which are primarily describing thought from World War I to Cold War) that art should be focus on the personal experience. The artists and critics write long statements of purpose, create a new language to discuss the new art. Everything is self-referential and honestly I find that exclusive and egotistical. The avant gard artists puff themselves up as the one and only Great Expression. Critics speak disparagingly of the masses who do not understand. I refer to this bluntly as mental masturbation. How can someone claim to be revolutionary while propagating the same exclusion of the lower class? That's why I think modern art is elitist. Traditionally art was for the elite because only the elite could see it in their private residences. Modern art restricts access through jargon and pretension. When art is self referential you need to research the artist and ces influences in order to understand the intended meaning. If you don't read the intended meaning, some artists believe you are unsophisticated and unworthy of the art.
At the same time I think about how obvious visuals act as aggressive propaganda. What's an artist to do? Talk bullshit circles around a nonrepresentational piece? Focus simply on beauty and have shallow meaning? Use symbols that beat the viewer about the head with a brick about your intended meaning?
I realize I'm being nonspecific. If I look at Pollock, I know he rejects representational art, favoring "expression" over "illustration" (his words). The abstract expressionist escapes mechanical production in order to express the angst of living in the modern world, the world of the atom bomb, the telephone, and the airplane. But unless you read (and often, spend quite a bit of time deciphering) the artist statement, how are you to know that's what the piece is about? I love Pollock's work for it's beauty. I love the feeling of being overwhelmed by a large canvas. I love the use of texture, the feeling of movement. The depth of his work is not self-evident, but it's specifically about a state of mind. So I ask, does it matter what the intention is if you can't figure it out just by looking at the piece? Perhaps it's the post-modernist in me, but I believe that meaning derives not from intention but from interpretation. If you need to read an essay to understand artist intention, does that make art better or worse? This goes for music and film as well. Of course traditional music without lyrics is different than traditional painting, because it cannot be so literally representative.
Another thing: I believe everyone is an artist. I hate how critics and artists talk about artists as some sort of rare creature that must have one certain kind of mind. There is a difference between the person who needs to paint, draw, craft, write every day and the person who doesn't feel the compulsion as strong, but that does not make the former person better or worse than the latter.
That's the end for now, but this felt nice to write.
The class I'm taking with Gonzales is quite thought provoking, especially considering I've been going through something of an existential crisis. What, I ask myself, is the point of art? What is the point of studying art at a UC which focuses on academic and conceptual growth rather than technical and economically marketable skill?
As I understand it, classically art was about beauty. Realism was the popular aesthetic, religion the mandatory topic if you were to keep the church as a patron. Then with the metaphorical death of God and birth of the industry, art is defined by self discovery, newness, revolutionary thought. In an perverse reversal, the art world states (in my readings, which are primarily describing thought from World War I to Cold War) that art should be focus on the personal experience. The artists and critics write long statements of purpose, create a new language to discuss the new art. Everything is self-referential and honestly I find that exclusive and egotistical. The avant gard artists puff themselves up as the one and only Great Expression. Critics speak disparagingly of the masses who do not understand. I refer to this bluntly as mental masturbation. How can someone claim to be revolutionary while propagating the same exclusion of the lower class? That's why I think modern art is elitist. Traditionally art was for the elite because only the elite could see it in their private residences. Modern art restricts access through jargon and pretension. When art is self referential you need to research the artist and ces influences in order to understand the intended meaning. If you don't read the intended meaning, some artists believe you are unsophisticated and unworthy of the art.
At the same time I think about how obvious visuals act as aggressive propaganda. What's an artist to do? Talk bullshit circles around a nonrepresentational piece? Focus simply on beauty and have shallow meaning? Use symbols that beat the viewer about the head with a brick about your intended meaning?
I realize I'm being nonspecific. If I look at Pollock, I know he rejects representational art, favoring "expression" over "illustration" (his words). The abstract expressionist escapes mechanical production in order to express the angst of living in the modern world, the world of the atom bomb, the telephone, and the airplane. But unless you read (and often, spend quite a bit of time deciphering) the artist statement, how are you to know that's what the piece is about? I love Pollock's work for it's beauty. I love the feeling of being overwhelmed by a large canvas. I love the use of texture, the feeling of movement. The depth of his work is not self-evident, but it's specifically about a state of mind. So I ask, does it matter what the intention is if you can't figure it out just by looking at the piece? Perhaps it's the post-modernist in me, but I believe that meaning derives not from intention but from interpretation. If you need to read an essay to understand artist intention, does that make art better or worse? This goes for music and film as well. Of course traditional music without lyrics is different than traditional painting, because it cannot be so literally representative.
Another thing: I believe everyone is an artist. I hate how critics and artists talk about artists as some sort of rare creature that must have one certain kind of mind. There is a difference between the person who needs to paint, draw, craft, write every day and the person who doesn't feel the compulsion as strong, but that does not make the former person better or worse than the latter.
That's the end for now, but this felt nice to write.