Friday, January 12, 2007

An Artists Rant

Recently I came across a rather heated and sarcastic debate about art on a discussion board. The question was, “Is this Art” and the photo that followed was of two rather large hearts (literally) encapsulated in two large specimen jars. The vast majority of respondents said "no" this is not art. The debate went all the way to considering the value, or lack there of, of non-representational art. I’d like to share my response to this argument and ask what you think, thanks.


I’ll begin by commenting on the initial photograph and question, which by the way was a brilliant way to evoke such a debate. I say this not only because of the subject of the photograph but also because of the lack of a contextual description. This lack of information in itself causes us to attempt definitions for art. It seems that the majority of responses are leaning toward the “this is not art” position. Maybe it is, maybe it is not. Perhaps this is simply a photograph taken at some anonymous school or abandoned laboratory where these two classroom specimens were left behind and when the new tenants purchased the property they took a shot of these jars sitting on a table.

Nevertheless, let us assume, if only for arguments sake, that this was a created installation at some notable gallery in New York. If this were the case, I would automatically try to attach some sort of meaning to the piece, especially if an artist statement about the piece was absent. What would my reaction be? Eeeewwww, disgusting, just as most people; even those who would pretend to be contemplating the importance of the piece without being affected by the gross-out factor. However, once I move past this initial response, which by the way made me stop and look, a vital component to any piece of art, I might see something other than what is in front of me. Like what, you say? Perhaps the installation is an attempt to express the artists despair over a horrible love affair gone wrong. Two hearts, forever dead, floating through their confined little world, never to be alive again, eternally separated. Even the world outside of the jars is dilapidated and cold, just as one who has suffered great loss might see it. Does my understanding of love and loss, and the fact this artist rendering caused me to see how powerful this loss can be, automatically create a value to the installation? Let me clarify that I’m not advocating an all encompassing value for shock pieces or other similar work because I do believe that there is plenty of crap out their, such as enema art (pun intended). I am however a believer in the connection between the artist, the art, and the viewer, even if the connection is not purposely sought after by the artist.

Now, I know that I’ve taken up quite a bit of space here and I surely don’t want to bore anyone but I have to comment on Daz Cox’s thoughts about non-representational art. The comment that says that this type of art is for the people who can’t draw is a little narrow, sorry. Learning to draw is purely technique, granted there are those who develop their technique into a notable style and create fantastic pieces, but it is still purely technique. Once you learn the importance of elements such as the vanishing point, chiaroscuro, stippling, cross-hatching, etc., and you develop the ability to use these devices effectively then you too can be an artist! Don’t get me wrong, once again I’m not implying that there is no artistic value in the ability to draw, on the contrary, there are magnificent examples everywhere. What I am saying though, is that this ability is no more valuable than ability to create a moving piece of non-representation art. Sorry, but Pollock’s work was, and still is fantastic. It was mentioned that an assembly line could be created that would reproduce his “drip paintings” and, along with some serious sarcasm, they would then become “unique…pieces”. I beg to differ, for two reasons. First, although an assembly line could be programmed to create drip paintings they would be anything but unique in that after the first was completed, then all of the rest would be identical. Wait! You say, you could reprogram and make slight adjustments to make each piece unique. Yes, each piece would need to be carefully and meticulously gone over so as not to copy the same movement as the previous one…which leads me to my second thought on the subject, who’s doing the programming to ensure this uniqueness? An artist? No assembly line ever created (not yet at least) has the ability to ascertain the composition, the palette, or the movement itself, that takes vision, the vision of someone who wants to create. To say that non-representational art has no real value is to lack understanding. What can possibly be more difficult to create something from nothing? To take nothing but an emotion, or a desire to create a unique texture, or whatever the artist chooses, without any real-world representation and create something that produces a curiosity as to method, or a feeling of pleasure, is exponentially interesting, difficult, and valuable. A friend once said to me a similar argument as yours. She said, “Anybody can do that kind of art.” I said, “Oh, yeah? Let’s see.” I gave her a piece of canvas, some paint, and challenged her to create a piece and this is what she made:




Nuff said…for now. Thanks for letting me rant.

6 comments:

Darren Daz Cox said...

hey now! If you are going to talk about me outside of the origional discussion at least give me a chance to respond!

Not all non-objective art is made by artists without the talent to do anything else, but alot of it is, in my educated opinion.

I have seen plenty of college art students who were fed the idea, that non-objective art is 'equal' to representational art. This is generally because the typical college art student only has a few hours a day, at most, to really work on art, and it is hard to learn the disciplines of realism, and when you can get equal enjoyment and grades from simply 'winging it-letting your 'emotions paint the canvas' (instead of your brain) then people end up with a degree in art but can only do non-objective art which is only a small slice of the world of art.

It's a rip-off to not require art students to learn basic realism skills, it's like letting kids learn English from comic books instead of stuffy text books, sure it's still the written word/literature but comics have limitations, but if you could get a degree in writing by reading comics instead of Shakespear, guess how many kids would do so?

Sure there are great comic books, brilliant works of art, but a comic artist can't compare to Michaelangelo's paintings in the grand scope of things.

Maybe I am just old-fashioned...

The Hatchling Press said...

Hey, there Daz, I'm glad that you found this post! In fact, I was disappointed that you did not respond in the "original discussion" (perhaps you have now, I'll be sure to check it).

I do agree with your "old fashioned" notions and believe that one cannot fully appreciate non-objective work without an understanding of realism -- in a sense; you have to understand something to understand nothing. I also agree that a student surely should not receive an art degree if such a narrow approach has been studied. And quite frankly, in my educated experience, I’ve never met someone who has a bachelors degree from a reputable institution without having a broad range of experiences, they definitely didn’t get through the program by solely studying and producing non-objective pieces, if they did then I’d question the degree. However, if I implied otherwise I will be sure to correct it.
Nevertheless, I must still argue once again that non-objective art is not simply “winging it”. Keep in mind that I am not referring to pieces that lack actual substance. Just as there is ‘less than’ realistic work, I recognize that this same issue rests within non-rep. pieces as well. It’s the idea that these non-rep. pieces lack any real substance, and are only “emotions”, that sits wrong with me. The same elements of compositional rules apply for this type of art, and when they are absent, as in the example I posted, it becomes obvious that substance, discipline, and understanding are absent. I’m sure my friend would say that she was expressing her emotions, but that doesn’t justify the piece as anything other than dimensionless and compositionally void piece.

And finally, your brilliant comparison of comics and literature goes back to the first portion of my response. There is obviously no justification for providing degrees in any discipline by taking short cuts.

Thanks for responding, I look forward to future debates.
(^_^)

Darren Daz Cox said...

:)
frankly I got tired with the 'is this art' discussion when it became apparant that most people consider "anything can be art" or have no strong opinions either way.

I don't mind being wrong when there is a strong counter arguement so thanks for sticking to your point and stating your opinion clearly.

I had a book on Pollock's non-rep art and honestly tried to 'get it' but from what I saw in that coffee table book it just looked weak and over-rated, however, I thought the same about Rothco until I actually stood beside one in the St. Louis Art Museum.

Often, it seems, that scale matters in art, size matters. A tiny color feild wouldn't have the same 'power'.

I can't remember seeing a Pollock in situ, so either the jury is still out for me or I saw it and it didn't register.

Undercover Mother said...

All I can think about when I hear about Jackson Pollock is the "Olivia" book where it says:

"But there's one painting that Olivia just doesn't get. 'I could do that in about five minutes,' she says. When she gets home, she gives it a try.

Time out.

After a nice bath, and a nice dinner, it's time for bed."

I can't draw my way out of a paper bag, but I can remember my children's books.

As a total non-artist, I think it's opinion. If you're uneducated like me and you see, for instance, a crucifix in pee, the answer is "Oh hail no!"

Undercover Mother said...

Aw crap. I signed on under my "Elderly relative-safe" blog handle. The one above is me.

The Hatchling Press said...

Thanks "mom of three"... and I hear what you are saying. Pieces like the one you described by Andres Serrano definitely do push the envelope so to speak. Thanks for your input.