I believe that artists use one or more of three basic methods for making artistic decisions.
1. The way. When using “the way” the artist chooses one or more basic principles (usually abstract concepts) which guide and inform decisions in the art process. If the artist decides that they want to devote their art to the advancement of jelly beans for medicinal purposes this decision would impact every work they made. They would be following “the way of medicinal jelly beans” in a similar way that a Tang Soo Do student is following the way (or Do) of the Tang hand (Soo means hand but there is some disputation about the meaning of Tang in Tang Soo Do).
2. Principle (or judgment). Here the artist develops a set of basic rules for their work. When an artist is confronted with a choice of options they can return to these basic rules and make a specific decision based on the rules. Artists in the past have made rules such as: “traditional tools and techniques are the best,” “make art representational,” “paintings should be based on atmospheric impressions.” These rules could be helpful or not. Sometimes they focus an artist by limiting the range of options. Other times, they hut an artist by channeling his creative energy in worthless directions.
3. Examples. Artists sometimes choose one or more artists that they appreciate and try to make works “like” that artist. Most artists have been impressed and inspired by historical works and other artist. Often artist learn more about technique and visual communication by looking at extent works than they do reading about those work without seeing them. The principle danger here is that an artist who paints “like Picasso” may never be known for anything more. It may not be valuable to the world to have another Picasso painting.
Certainly these three strands of thought are often braded to form a stronger cord. It’s notable that these three paths include a spectrum from inductive to deductive methods.
Two words and some meta-information in a note blow a recent post by Franklin Einspruch caught my attention.
The words were “attention economy” and the link led to an article called “Attention Shoppers!” by Michael H. Goldhaber. Goldhaber, according to a footnote on the article is “completing a book on the attention economy.” Read the article if you want to know more about this topic.
The idea is that we are not in an information economy. (Information abounds to the extent that it would be equally valid to say that we are in an oxygen economy.) Instead, we exchange attention with one another.
The discussion question is this—are we indeed in an information economy and if we are, how does that affect art? What does a move toward an attention economy mean for the art world? What will change? What will go unchanged?
The second thing that Capon’s The Supper of the Lamb: A Culinary Reflection has caused me to think on is the instinctual need for an authoritative source. (look here for the previous thought on this subject)
Capons use of scripture to support his thoughts imply that he believe the Bible to have some authority. If the Bible says a thing is good then there must be something good about that thing. (I should clarify that this book is not written in an argumentative tone but rather, as the title suggests, in a reflective manner. Capon’s goal is to make the readers think for themselves not to supply them with a lot of readymade answers.)
Humans have a natural desire to base their thinking on something that they believe they can trust.
Aestheticians are constantly battling about the definition of the word art. Here’s a quick list of some positions that people take related to defining art. There are of course many other schools of thought but these are some that are still being supported. (Thanks to folks on Aesthetics-L for their informative debate on this topic.)
1. Institutional: institutions define what works should be called art.
2. Elitist: an elite group decides which works should be called art.
3. Populist: art is defined by what is popularly called art.
4. Lexical: the word art can be defined by common usage.
5. Idealist: There is an ideal art object (probably not physical) by which other works of art may be judged. The more they conform to the ideal the more worthy they are to be called art.
6. Objectivist: This is a broad category that includes many of the others. It just says that art should be judged based on objective attributes. Objective attributes can be experienced by one or more senses like color, line, or pitch.
7. Subjectivist: Another broad category that defines art based on subjective attributes. One definition of the word subjective is ‘taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment"’ (www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn).
8. Naturalist: art is a reflection of nature and the closer it mirrors nature the better the art will be.
It’s not hard to see that none of these definitions seem to account for art as we know it today. The thing that interests me most is how each thought school relies on some source for authority.
John Dewey in Art as Experience bases his definition of art on evolution. Basically he says that art is a process which helps people adapt to their environment so just about anything can be called art. Dewey spends almost a whole chapter saying that we shouldn’t eliminate everyday occurrences such as supper from the category called art. The most authoritative source that Dewey trusted in was science. Whatever science said he believed and science said that all things—from maggots to men—are the product of chance and random processes.
The result is that Dewey spends a lot of time backpedaling from his false start. If evolution is the evaluative principle of art then there is no value difference between any two works that fall into his art category. It doesn’t matter how well a work was made, if it helps people to adapt to their environment it can be called art. Dewey realized that this wasn’t a tenable of useful definition so he spends the rest of his book putting additional requirements on art so that he can eliminate a bunch of stuff that no one wants to call art from the art category.
Other definitions like the institutional and elitist (often two heads of the same dragon) struggle with dependability. If you believe that an elite group of people define what is classified as art then you have to figure out which people get allowed into the inner sanctum of the elite.
If you think institutions define art, which institutions should be allowed to do so? Do all museums have the right to say what art is? What about governments, or a board of artistic governors?
Of further interest is the assertion that art cannot be defined. If you listen long enough to a person who asserts this their argument usually runs something like this. “As I look at the group of works that impress me as art I am unable to find an attribute common to all of them so there must not be a way to define what is art.” At its bottom this definition relies on the authority of the individual asserting it.
Everyone wants to believe that their definition of art is based on the most authoritative source possible. Whether it’s based on nature or logic, a definition is only as valuable as the authority that asserts it. Whatever the definition, figuring out what authority it depends on is the first step in evaluating the definition. When you formulate your own definition of art, consider what you have chosen as its central authority. No doubt that authority is defining more for you than art.
I recently finished a book called The Supper of the Lamb: A Culinary Reflection by Robert Farrar Capon. (you can find out more about it here). Capon and I don’t agree on every point but there is one thing that we are in full accord about.
Fat is not evil.
Capon and I however are fairly lonely in our opinion. I think it would be fair to say that most adults in the US believe that fat in food is to be avoided at all costs. You can get low or no fat substitutes for just about anything. Butter is seen as a spike in the culinary tree.
Capon and I turn to the same source to support our conclusion. God through Isaac promised Jacob “Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine:”. Fatness, if it were bad wouldn’t be part of a blessing. Rather, it would be used as a curse (“the fat of the land be upon you for this thing” evil, or the converse, “I will maintain the skinniness of your waist all your days” or “the carbs shall not collect upon thee neither shall the calories be stored up in your hips”).
There must be an aesthetic principle here somewhere. Although the aesthetics of food cannot be considered a major player in philosophic circles, it is gaining in interest (Google it and see for yourself). The issue of fat brings two ideas to mind.
First, the historical context of fat as a symbol. It’s clear from the Biblical passage that the people of that time thought of fat as a good thing but fat today is an evil to be avoided.
If you made the same dish of mashed potatoes with a big melted lump of butter crowning the mound and served it to the average person today, they would likely shun it. The negative connotations of fat would cause them to judge the whole dish negatively. They reject good potatoes because they contain bad fat (or carbohydrates but that’s off topic).
This reaction is understandable in certain situations. We should all eat responsibly. For instance, if you know that there is arsenic mixed with the potatoes then you should reject the whole dish rather than try to eat around the bad parts. On the other hand, the fact that some contemporary painters insist on wasting their audience’s time by creating infantile works of art is not a good reason to write off the art world as a whole and call for a return to academic realism (This site calls for just that).
What is worth aesthetic interest here is how butter, the symbol of an invisible concept of fat) has become a negative factor despite the innate pleasure derived from it. People love to eat butter when they don’t know they are doing so. Cream sauces and croissants (good ones) are full of it and people gobble them down. But if you told most people, it’s the fat that make that croissant flaky and delicious they would likely slink away glumly.
Certain symbols are so powerful in a society that even a minor reduction in their presence is seen as good. Put “20% less fat” on a label (that’s 4 pats of butter instead of 5) and you are assured of monetary success. If a government official says 20% less money will be wasted he is hailed as a hero. The symbol of a-little-waste-averted gives a candidate a wholly positive aesthetic to the voting public. People still want the benefits of government spending just like they want the beneficial taste of butter but it makes them feel good to know that they are choosing a little less of what their favorite vice.
Some times an art work is received positively just because it reduces the amount of a negative philosophy compared to its contemporaries. Later, as a work is re-evaluated, that reduction doesn’t seem so important and opinion turns against the work. Some of G. B. Shaw’s plays are like this. He was a leader of the fight for women’s rights in his day but some of the ideas he posited in his plays are looked upon today as dated. His ideas about what women had the right to do was different from what activists today believe.
It’s wise to note that neither that essential value of butter nor of women’s liberty to act in society has changed. Only the definition that contemporary culture places on these terms has changed. The change in definition of butter from a tasty goodness to dangerous fat carrier hasn’t changed the butter itself. The effect of butter has not changed.
Only the appreciation of fat has changed with time. The appreciation has changed. Education affects appreciation but adjusting definitions. Cezanne’s work was not appreciated fully until the people were educated as to his definition of art. Once that definition was grasped the works came alive. The paints hadn’t changed, just the expectation.
Modified definitions however seldom precede the artworks that they encompass. The definition of art that helped people to appreciate Cezanne’s paintings could not have been formulated without his experimental works to guide it.
There is a circular bent to this argument. Possibly though, the aesthetic side of the definition of art (not the physical definition) is a handle by which we grasp art rather than a tool with which we make art. Few great dramatic theorists were also great playwrights.
Maybe art is two mental states connected by an action and an object. Foundational concept, experiment/experience, and altered perception based on impact. This would be the case for artist and audience. An artist couldn’t begin without a foundational concept, they could not proceed without eventually trying something, and they would not know they were done until their perception of the art object had been changed.
A viewer would have no chance of enjoying a work without a foundational concept that was somehow tangential to the art object they were to view, they could not compare the work and their concept with out experiencing the work, and depending on the nature of the comparison their perception of the object would change.
An artist might decide that a cream sauce would be the best way to express the joy of life that they feel. They might, then, begin to test their premise by constructing one (like this one) using butter et. al. As they got closer to finishing the sauce they might taste it to see if it getting across just the message they wanted to communicate before presenting it to whomever they wanted to communicate to.
People may immediately enjoy the flavor of butter or the vibrancy of Cezanne’s colors but once they have been prepared for the butter experience they might appreciate it more fully. It’s only after people see the gift that butter is that they get a hint at its value. Butter as the evidence of a fruitful earth brings with it more enjoyment than churned, salted milk fat.
Second, and even more interesting … well, maybe later.
Here are two well written articles about the current state of the art world.
The first is here but it points immediately here.
Both are worth a read even if you don’t agree with them.
Today is voting day in South Carolina.
As I voted I was reminded of an ongoing and highly emotional debate happening on Aesthetics-L. Some have argued that Thomas Kinkade’s work is art because a large group of people think of it as art.
What if we had art elections?
You could go into a small booth, flip through a booklet and poke a little pin through the hole marked Edward Hopper or Nick Bantok. This would make the work of the duly elected artist art and no one could argue against it.
Of course that would mean that, unlike the two page South Carolina butterfly ballot, there might be thousands of artists to check. That might be too difficult so maybe you could just vote for movements. You could vote a straight cubist ticket – or you could approve all the artists who call themselves deconstructionists. This would save a lot of time.
Still, you might like most neo-geo or minimalist paintings but you might not think much of their sculpture so perhaps you could also choose mediums. You could vote to allow all new-media installations into the artistic pantheon.
The difficulty comes when you look at the ballot and you see a lot of unfamiliar names like Yoshi Abe, Radu Aftenie, and Mark Beam. A few voters would carefully look up each artist , evaluate their work and message and they would make informed decisions about who should be considered and artist. Others would find someone whose opinion they trust to evaluate the artistic candidates for them. Most people would vote for the first guy on the list or whatever name they recognize. That’s the easiest way.
Some artists could get people to vote for them by using publicity to make their names familiar to the voters. Other artists who spend all their time working wouldn’t have the time and money to generate buzz so organizations of people who were sympathetic to their style could work for them. Of course previously recognized, incumbent artists would have an advantage over lesser known artists.
Artists whose message focused on serious problems in society would always be at a disadvantage. On the other hand, an artist who reinforced popular values would be a shoe-in for the artist position.
Why shouldn’t common people have the same say about what is or isn’t art as academics and theorists?
You tell me?
Maybe we should just skip Florida though.
(Jason now removes his tongue from his cheek)
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.