Musing on the True Nature Of Art

[sqbr]

As the child of two art school dropouts(*) this is a topic which both fascinates and irritates me. I wrote a bit about it in More thoughts about Art and responsibility.

Anyway, ithiliana collects some recent discussion in writing, ART, responsibilities, powers, contexts which capture a lot of my annoyance. (She also has a lot of interesting things to say for herself, but they're less relevant to my rant)

I guess I see "challenging" yourself and other people, and art, as two separate things. Not orthogonal, but not all art challenges and not all challenges are art(**). I also get Really Annoyed at people who claim that the quality of a piece of art is directly proportional to the strength of the response it creates, since then they rely on cheap easy gimmicks to get strong responses (Religion+violence+children+excrement, say)

And if the point of your art is to be challenging: what are you challenging? Does it actually need challenging, or are you again taking cheap potshots? See, for example, all the "edgy" comics who poke at political correctness but not at the genuinely unquestioned aspects of their society, since audiences would much rather laugh at the oppressed than themselves.

Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with taking the easy way, but if you do you can't get all high-and-mighty about how Important and Unique your work is.

(*)Who, afaict, feel much the same way I do. And between them they do actually have all the courses for two fine art majors, but being True Stereotypical Arty Types they just never got it together enough to graduate :)
(**)And any artist who justifies their art by saying it's challenging, then freaks out if anyone challenges them about the assumptions and subtext of their work is a hypocrite. EDIT: I mean freaking out at the idea of being challenged, obviously you can object to any given challenge if you think it's wrong.

Comments

[attentive]

Why do you care though? My theory: because you are subjected to art that is supposed to be confronting, transformative, insightful - but it's not living up to its billing. But that's because of inadequate governance of exhibition spaces, or because of curators with limited critical capability.

Personally, I love art that provokes a response. What I don't love is being told a piece of art is going to provoke a response and then finding it old hat or simply weak.

"Religion+violence+children+excrement"

I really don't mind this sort of thing per se. It's all about subtlety or the lack thereof. It's perfectly reasonable to be interested in the fact that some configurations of things are etiquette dynamite and some are not.

To be honest, I just don't see where this leads. To a space in which art encourages quiet contemplation, not outrage? I find that thought outrageous! Also, I don't think there's a need to distinguish between "art" and "craft" and I think it's preferable to talk about specific works, or creators, or schools of artistic production - rather than talking about "art" in general or pretending to answer the question "What is Art?" - which is much like asking "What is Stuff?" ...

[sqbr]

because you are subjected to art that is supposed to be confronting, transformative, insightful - but it's not living up to its billing

Well, that annoys me too. But in particular I was expressing annoyance at being confronted with art which is offensive, but not in a transformative or insightful way, and then when criticised the artist takes refuge behind the "Art is Supposed to be Confronting" mantra.

The specific incident that inspired this post was Elizabeth Bear, whose reaction to criticism was the catalyst for RaceFail09, justifying the (racist) offensiveness of her work by the fact that it was Art and Art Is Supposed To Offend.

I'm not saying Art shouldn't offend, I'm just saying that "It's Art!" isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for any and all offense, especially when noone's calling for censorship or whatever they're just criticising it.

"Religion+violence+children+excrement"

I really don't mind this sort of thing per se.

Oh me either. But the fact that it's incredibly easy to make an offensive piece of art on those topics is I think a counterexample to the "Offending people is really difficult and important and thus should be one of the main purposes of art" argument. Offending people is easy. Challenging them is hard and important, but not all offensive art is challenging, and not all challenging art is super-offensive.

And of course there's also the fact that pretty much everything I create is G-rated and humourous, and TrueArtIsAngsty :)

[attentive]

I hear you. Also, Elizabeth Bear again? I don't even think she's a good writer (personal opinion).

I don't think this discussion goes to the foundations as well as I'd like it to, and I'm currently contemplating a portentous blog entry on the subject of art as a consequence. Be warned.

[sqbr]

Also, Elizabeth Bear again?

It was topical when I wrote the post!

I'm currently contemplating a portentous blog entry on the subject of art as a consequence. Be warned.

OH NO :)