At the theatre this weekend I was impressed upon by a string of artists suggesting that their work was offering nothing more to me than an idea of their work being pure art with no intention, existing only as its self. They say it was created without purpose, Art for Art's sake. So I got around to a long overdue thinking about this and questioning, after years of working in the arts, can this really be the case?
I think not!
I understand Art to be defiantly expressive in whatever form it takes and so long as an artist is impressing ideas upon matter, energy, space or time then he is expressing and there for MUST be expressing SOMETHING because surely if he were literally expressing NOTHING then the art would not exist to be seen in the first place. It naturally follows then that effective expression relies on communication and it can be said that art in fact is communication, the quality of which when challenged by artistic license is what generally provokes argument, speculation, affinity or contempt for any piece of work. Whilst a lack of understanding regarding communication might lead an artist to claim he is making Art for Art's sake, I oppose this. Art for Art's sake is a paradox, the sharing of any information between two entities defines what communication means and whilst ever an artist has an audience he is consolidating this fact and thus declaring that he can never just make Art for Art's sake.
'Nothing' in the literal sense of the word cannot truly and originally be expressed but we see many examples of the interpretation of what 'nothing' is or what 'nothing' means to people and in some cases it seems to mean quite a lot. In its clearest moments Art is descriptive, narrative and the message is obvious. In its most obscure form art can be likened to an experiment. One of my favourite choreographers, famed for his abstract concepts and 'pure' movement in dance, might be seen as an artist who created movement for movements sake but again this would be a paradox, I believe Merce Cunningham to have been a scientist of dance, he experimented with new ways of creating movement and he used fresh and innovative soundscapes that were arbitrary to those of his peers. His experiments would have a theory, a method, a process and finally a result which would then be performed, or more specifically, communicated to an audience and this, I believe, is the very least way in which Art can express. An experiment is the closest you will come to Art for art's sake.
Since we rely on the emotional response to be evoked within us when we see Art the lines of communication have to be blurred, the message often needs to be tainted in order to be effective. For example; music may be added to a Dance, images in photographs may be obscured or colours in painting could be smudged and blended. These are methods of abstracting a theme in order to open up the interpretation to the audience. The mind is a wonderful engine, a pattern finder that tries to fill in the missing pieces, it is curious, it wants to know the full story and using memory and imagination it will often piece together an intricate adaptation that arouses feeling within us and causes a reaction, a response to the work. Artistic license gives the artist more scope to ignite this feeling through sound, colour or movement. In this sense, isn't it true that the use of communication is Art in itself? The method of communication, the intention in the clarity and consistency of the patterns revealed is the invisible bridge that touches the audience and without this invisible connection, this communication, there would be no art.
Art is a dialogue whether we like it or not and whilst some artists try as hard as they can to obscure the meaning they simply provoke debate. Other artists will lay the message bare on the canvas and an audience will still argue over hidden meanings that were never intended to be there. So what does this tell me? Well first of all that Art is unreliable as a source of accurate information for it is coloured with opinion, judgements, preference and experience but this means it is ever more effective in creating a reaction, in provoking debate and thus creating positive contact between humans. How many other mediums are capable of this?
As society we accept that there are varying degrees of meaning behind the Art we see, I remember my parents, working class and low on money, expressing a massive disdain for Tracy Emins bedroom piece that earned her great respect in the art world and whilst others were calling her brilliant my mum was calling her a lazy drunken student (among other things) who was pissing the governments money up the wall. I was young at the time and felt quite indifferent about it but having since seen the woman in interviews with broken limbs due to drunken nights out and still slurring her words (Emin, not my Mum) I see that my good old parents were right but just because they didn't like it or agree with it who is to say that Emin still wasn't brilliant to use what she had and what she knew to express what was going on around her at the time, and on that note;
When does Art become Art?
Now, here is the deal breaker. Suppose that Cunningham had conducted one of his Dance experiments one day but decided he was just going to keep the results in his bottom drawer, or fancy that Emin came home one night and decided to tidy her bedroom instead of publishing it to the world. Tell me now if you think that this work would be Art. I say not. There would be no Art because there was no communication.
So, when does Art become Art? Well by all accounts an article becomes art if it is telling us something and if it is shared. Seems too simple a definition perhaps for such a complex question that has been debated for an age but this is a matter of fact. In actuality I find that the Art debate is actually a misrepresentation of the conflict regarding the quality of communication versus the audiences opinions and judgements on whether or not they 'get it'.
This is just an observation on my part that will no doubt meet disagreement but that is fine since it will meet my purpose for creating this article in the first place and I am happy to concede that it is healthy to disagree on this subject. In fact I encourage you to disagree and partake in one healthy debate after another, let debates inspire you to share your feelings, to express your points and let the differences bring you closer to the person sitting beside to you at your next visit to the theatre, then when you get home let it bring you closer to your neighbour. Maybe this process of discussing Art can eventually unite the nations and then the world! ...OK so this is a wee bit optimistic and maybe a bit 'Miss Universe 2011' but I think you get my drift.
And now, the questions that bake my noodle and perhaps trump my own debate are my last:
Who decides if an article is Art at all? Only the creator (an artist, not God) can choose to release an article of expression but if there is no one there to receive it, what does it become? This is another discussion for another time, I'm not sure how deep that rabbit hole goes so for arguments sake I will say today that I have created this Article, it is communicative and since you are reading (I hope someone is reading it) it is shared and thus it is Art, so say I.
To conclude: Art above all else is a medium of communication and if you can't agree that it is communication in itself you can surely see that your argument and desire to oppose me is the seed of yet another communication brought on by my writing which is in itself an article of creative communication...ART! So go ahead and respond and let us celebrate the communication of Art....or if you prefer; the Art of communication. Choose your expression.