The following is my own answer to the puzzle of the waxed mustache.
My own view of art is a functional one. That is, I look at art from two perspectives based on my function related to art. On one side I see art from the artist’s perspective. On the other side I see with the educational (teacher/student) perspective. Both sides come to the same conclusion. Knowledge of the artists life is critical to forming a balanced view of their work.
As an artist …
I want to view a work like Singularities Which I found here. I want to take a long and primarily objective look at both physical and aesthetic technique.
As an artist I’m asking, how were the formal structures created or used. Did he use color in an effective way?. Did the composition help or hurt the image? Was the paint application appropriate to the work? Was there a sense that each part of the work was necessary or were some elements superfluous?
The base of all my questions as an artist is one of perspective. What impact will this work have on my own work? First, I want to know whether the work has enough critical acclaim to tint what I am doing personally. Whether an artist likes or dislikes Picasso’s work they cannot avoid the shadow of it on their own subsequent work. Even someone as cheesy as Thomas Kincade will effect the way future art viewers look at the impressionist techniques.
Second, how much of an impression has it made on me and does the work have any unique technical or ideological qualities. If the work had a great impact on me I might want emulate the feel of a positive effect or avoid the feel of a work with a negative effect. I might use a unique method of paint application or an unusual means of equating two seemingly dissimilar images.
The problem is that the artist work is mixed in with his own subjective cultural baggage. His message is shouted in his own cultural language. Even his technique is not based solely on his aesthetic choices. Since we can’t assume that the artist’s subjective baggage is the same as our own we have to filter it out to get a clear picture of what he has accomplished.
As a teacher …
or student my perspective is different. I have to understand all I can and I have two basic tools with which to build a model of the artistic universe. Understanding can be reached by analysis or by synthesis.
Looking with the analytical eye I pull each piece apart, examine them, and form conclusions about what makes them tick. Take the individual pieces of imagery - an ant or an angel- out of context and find out their historical meaning. Consider the use of one color at a time. Puzzle over the work’s title.
In the synthesis phase all the puzzle pieces are re-assembled and I try to form several perspective views of the piece.
I look at it from the art history view. Is this work of sufficient import to the art world to force my students to learn about it? How much time should it be given? Is it a primary example of a given idea (surrealism or realism) or just a minor instance to be mentioned? What have critics said about this work?
I also try to form an idea of the artist’s perspective on the work. How did they feel about this piece? Unless they are alive the only way to guess at this is to learn as much as possible about the artist as a person. This includes biographical information, personal writings and as complete a view of the cannon of their work as possible. Only by looking at the artist’s life work can you fully understand the subtleties of their personal symbolism.
In addition to understanding the work, a teacher has to help students contextualize the philosophic and cultural values of a given work. An artist’s work may be rooted in a self destructive philosophy and knowledge of the impact of that philosophy in their life may help steer students in a better direction. Too, often artists overstate their positions and seeing how they lived can temper this misleading message.
Understanding an artist’s life gives a clearer picture of their individual works by contextualizing philosophic messages in the work, illuminating personal symbolism, and filtering out subjective cultural baggage. This research (not just shallow surface scratching) usually leads to a richer understanding and sympathy for the work and artist. In the few cases where it doesn’t it may allow us a chuckle at the frockless emperor’s expense.