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

[softestbullet]

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.

Ha! Exactly.

-another art school dropout

[sami]

Yeah, that's the problem I have with a lot of art that's supposed to be "challenging".

Okay. What are you challenging? What is it, beyond "offensive", that you're trying to convey? What precept are you "challenging"?

Unless you have a clear answer to that question, shut up, you know? And, too, unless you can justify *why* you should be challenging that particular thing. Like, if you're challenging political correctness - why? Because you think racism/misogyny/etc should be protected? Etc.

[sqbr]

Like, if you're challenging political correctness - why? Because you think racism/misogyny/etc should be protected?

But don't you understand it's like CENSORSHIP. And anything that's like CENSORSHIP(*) is automatically evil. No exceptions.

(*)Which is to say, any time someone suggests that maybe you might want to change the way you express yourself

Steady on there.

[leecetheartist]

I appear to have a diploma, so I'm afraid I'm not one of your "True Arty Type"s.

Many artists, writers, musicians whether their work is 'challenging' or not freak out to *any* criticism - whether it's justified or not. It could be an ego thing, I think. A lot of artists have pretty big egos - and that is a benefit when you're in this line of work, because sometimes it is the only thing that keeps you going.

So first check, just *why* is the artist freaking out? Is it because they really passionately believe that what they're doing is important? Or they haven't had time to think about it? Or hadn't realised things in quite that light? Or have a lot of emotional investment in the piece? Or are they a prima donna? Or are they indeed a hypocrite?

Why, in the end, do you consider your opinion better/ more right/more relevant than theirs?

What if the artist is not around to challenge? What if they're dead or disappeared? *It's between you and the work.* You can say what bothers you about the work and cut it down to size and that's *your* right as an artist yourself. Because all art, in the end, is intent.

"And if the point of your art is to be challenging: what are you challenging?"

The viewer?

I'm lucky, I guess. I don't think my art will ever be thought of challenging to anybody, it's hardly controversial stuff.

There is no right or wrong to art. All we can do is say to ourselves whether we like something or not and how our own minds react to it.

I've always thought the interaction is between the viewer and the piece, not the viewer and the artist.

Re: Steady on there.

[sqbr]

Oops, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that anyone who gets a diploma of Fine Art isn't a Real Artist, that would be absurd! I meant "stereotypical disorganised artistic types". Stereotypical /= True *thwaps self because I know that*

Also me being unclear: By freaking out I didn't mean "strongly disagreeing with a given criticism", I meant "Getting angry at the idea of being criticised". And I do think that if you think making people uncomfortable with your art is hugely important then I think you should be ok with other people saying things that make you uncomfortable. You don't have to agree, but you shouldn't object on principle.

I think there's no right or wrong to art as art. But, for example, if I made a painting with stolen paints then that would be wrong, regardless of how good the painting was.

Re: Steady on there.

[leecetheartist]

*nods* Thank you for your clarification. /soapbox

However, the viewer would not necessarily *know* the paint was stolen...:-)

[lauredhel]

Is it just me? I find Bear's remarks really jarring from a gender point of view also. Is it a conscious choice of hers to use the default "he" when talking about her readership? (I've asked this in-thread, but it's currently screened.)


"Yes. The reader is going to import his own context. And I can't control that. "

"I cannot control the reader. I cannot control what he brings to the text. All I can do is try to hold up mirrors, and understand that what the reader sees in them is influenced by the angle from which he looks."

"I do think that the guy who needs to be made to squirm is the one who is a little too comfortable, not the one who is already squirming."

"My standard is, if I am a hypothetical twelve-year-old kid who has never seen somebody like me in a story before, and who invests in that person I've created, how does he feel at the end of the book?"

Re: Steady on there.

[sqbr]

Hey, even if you did know the paint was stolen you might still think the painting is pretty :)

[sqbr]

I did not notice that, but yes.

[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 :)