It would seem sensible to suggest that a
work of art can only exist if the processes that brought it about demonstrate
the three aspects of the art form that identify it. In the case of Duchamp’s
work the form, called ‘Ready-mades’, and the work of art came into being
simultaneously as is the case with all new art forms. The organizers of the 1917 New York art
show did not recognize Duchamp’s Fountain as a work to be evaluated as art
because they did not recognize its form. Having an understanding of the concept of art
which entails an art form is necessary to recognize new art forms.
One difficulty with the scandalous view that
we can catalogue works of art into a hierarchy of species and subspecies such
as Serious Art, Telic Art and Amusement Art (J. Passmore, Serious Art, Duckworth,
London 1991)
is that it tends to marginalize those works that are delegated to the
subspecies and promotes the view that they are less worthy of the attention of
studious art lovers. It seems that such
a cataloguing is deemed necessary because these so called subspecies of art
provide less opportunity to exercise our ability to aesthetically admire them. Of course if we remove the notion of
aesthetic admiration from our pursuit of art appreciation and attend to form we
can reinstate these works and enjoy them without fear of the subtle, and
sometimes overt, ridicule that often accompanies them. More importantly the opportunity to exercise
our ability to discern the distinct parts of an art work promotes an acute
intellect.
If we can accept
the thesis that the creative act is a mental activity of seeing rather than
merely a physical one of making we can understand how such things as child art,
cat art, elephant art, etc. may all be equally worthy candidates for artistic
appreciation. We can also see why the
argument that art must be man-made is a superfluous condition for art. The failure to recognize animal art as
authentic art inhibits attempts to come to terms with a concept of art.
Ten to twenty thousand years ago humans of
the Paleolithic age painted wondrous pictures of bulls, horses and other
animals onto the walls of caves in France and Spain. There are conflicting theories concerning the
purpose of these activities but one thing is sure. These primitive humans had a very useful
vocabulary and they delighted in the creative act of seeing with the mind’s
eye. We know that cave art exists in the
deepest and darkest caverns but these paintings depend on light for their
existence. Imagine the shock of a
newcomer when a torch is lifted and these wondrous paintings materialize before
them. The shock of recognition is one of
the most pleasing and valuable insights we possess and works of art provide us
with the opportunity to indulge in this marvelous experience.
What
most theoreticians tend to miss is that our art forms are singularly unique
categories. There is no equivalent
prosaic form to confuse them with. The
import of deferring to the art form of a work is that it shows us how and what
aspects and parts we must use to appreciate or depreciate a work; how it may
exist within a form but not display the necessary conditions to be called exemplary. There is no need to create arbitrary
conditions in order to distinguish between works that are members of an art
form and, say, rocket engines, happenings, a new suit or a sunset because the
art form does it for us. Prosaic forms
only have two aspects. A failure to
recognize this is in part why the noted philosopher and art critic Arthur Danto
tied himself into knots trying to discover how it is that Warhol’s Brillo Boxes should be called works of
art whereas actual Brillo boxes are not. “In all these cases one must seek the
differences outside the juxtaposed and puzzling examples, and this is no less
the case when seeking to account for the differences between works of art and
mere real things which happen exactly to resemble them.”Danto, Arthur C Art Philosophy and the Philosopy of Art, Humanities Vol 4 No. 1 (February 1983)pp1-2
Arthur Danto viewing Warhol’s Brillo Boxes
Most people use the term
‘resemble’ when they know that two things are not the same. Curiously, Danto tries to strengthen his
argument by saying that two things ‘exactly’ resemble each other which is
obviously different from saying they are ‘exactly the same’. But there are very obvious differences
between an actual Brillo box which is a shipping carton and Warhol’s work of
the same name and we need not ‘seek outside’ these two examples to discover
them. Warhol made his cubes from plywood
and silk screened the Brillo logo
onto them and there are no flaps (common to cardboard boxes) on Warhol’s
work. A
Brillo box is a cardboard box with the logo machine printed on it and
was made to package and ship twenty four smaller saleable boxes of Brillo pads.
Warhol’s work has no ability to serve such a utilitarian purpose. Is this difference significant? You bet your sweet bippi it is. Warhol’s work demonstrates a clear ‘manner of
presentation’ which is significantly different from its medium of presentation
and the object of presentation. An
actual Brillo box cannot demonstrate these three aspects of form. There is no
way to distinguish between the manner of presentation and the medium of
presentation of an actual Brillo box. We
can only discover two aspects of form which is true of most prosaic items.
Recognition of the art form in our pursuit is the only distinction that need be
made. The question we need to ask is
could an actual Brillo Box be a work of art.
The answer is yes if it were manipulated such as to show an obvious
manner of presentation distinct from the medium of presentation. No doubt it would be classed as a ready-made.
We
expect each new work of art in an established art form to extend our
understanding of both the work and the form in which it participates. We expect
to ‘see’ a new experience of the form. However it was displayed an actual Brillo box
could not provide this experience whereas Warhol’s Brillo Box does. New works that merely reiterate what we know
of the form offer us no opportunity to undertake a creative act. We expect to
see new uses of the medium of the form, new techniques and new ways of presenting
the subject matter. When confronting new
art forms we see new materials used as the medium and new manners of
presentation and even new subject matters.
Unfortunately when new art forms are created there is a tendency to
subvert one or more of its aspects so that subject matter or manner of
presentation is paramount thereby detracting from the integrity of the
piece. This is the distinct problem of
Graffiti whereas Street Artists are often concerned with how their work is
presented choosing appropriate spaces in an attempt to maintain the integrity
of their work.
The fundamental criterion for deeming a
work to be exemplary is the recognition of its integrity. It must be said
that integrity in an art form is not an aesthetic property. Rather it is an artistic one. Integrity functions much the same in an art
form as it does when we consider respect for persons. We wish all persons to have integrity; that
what they say or promise matches their deeds.
We describe persons of integrity as unimpaired or undivided who
demonstrate a quality of completeness.
This is a quality we hold in high esteem.
We can recognize the same quality in works
we deem to be exemplary. The artist, of
course, is not pragmatic; he or she seeks out a challenge. He or she attempts
to present us with a common subject in a not so common way or a not so common
subject in a common way. Sometimes they
attempt to present us with an entirely new subject or new manner of
presentation within the medium. The
integrity of their work is determined by how well they have seamlessly
integrated their manner of presentation with their medium and subject matter of
presentation; the unified control of all aspects and constituent parts of their
work. Of course there will be no perfect
example of integrity. The most we will
be able to say of those finer works is ‘I can see no flaws.’ This forces us to
have standards that allow us to recognize a flaw when we see one which is an
ongoing educational pursuit. An art form
is an ever evolving category for the new works we value enhance the form
offering us a greater understanding of the possibilities within it.
I think is clear that in fine works the
various parts of a work will integrate with each other to the point where it
takes an astute mind to separate them.
Not all of us can go to the production of a new play which we have never
read and discern if the actor’s interpretation of the dialogue is valid or if
the director has made a poor staging choice which detracts from the subject
matter of the piece but some of us can.
The task is not difficult for those who have a long experience with theatre. This is equally true of all the other art
forms that exist. Long established art
forms have provided us with a wealth of knowledge by which we may evaluate new
works within them. This is one reason
artists are often the first to recognize excellence in the work of others.
One
import of emphasizing that form has three different aspects is that it provides
us with a means of recognizing a work that demonstrates an entirely new art
form. Too often new works (Duchamp’s Fountain is a classic example) are
dismissed as being inept examples of an established form. They are denigrated as mere novelty works but
if we first ask ourselves ‘What is the medium of presentation? What challenges are implicit as a result of
choosing this medium? If the artist
chose to work in casein or egg tempera rather than oils or acrylics then
different skills are needed to ensure success. Is the manner of presentation
clear? What tools and techniques were
used to manipulate the medium of the artist?
Does the size of the work contribute to our appreciation of the
work? Is it large for the sake of
largeness or is it large for the sake of understanding? How are we to describe the subject matter of
presentation? Does the medium and manner
of presentation complement the subject matter or does it merely define it? By asking ourselves these types of questions
we will have a way of seeing these works in the context of their own unique
form. We will also have a way of
appreciating or depreciating them.
I mentioned earlier that the means we use
to depreciate a work is the very same means we use to appreciate a work. We must have some objective means of
determining flaws in a work when they exist.
To do this we must be able to recognize a flaw when we see one. The pursuit of aesthetics does not provide us
with this ability for some works are not aesthetically pleasing by design. We must have a way of showing how artists try
but fail to make exemplary works.
In
obvious examples of failure the cause is usually the result of a lack of skill
but with accomplished artists it is more often the result of a misjudgment of
one kind or another. The two most common
flaws in art can be presented diagrammatically like this:
Diagram 1. represents a situation where one
aspect of a work’s form dominates the other two aspects consequently the
integrity of the work has been sacrificed.
In theatre such a corruption most often comes about when the subject
matter of the piece rules. Brecht’s
propaganda plays (he describes them as learning plays) are a case in point; the
message is the author’s concern. The
manner of the production, set, costume and lighting are minimal and the
language (medium) should not be such that it impresses us more than the
message. We see a similar situation
with paintings that seek to make a political statement or indulge in social
commentary.
There are also times when the script of a
piece is weak (medium) and the subject matter is so banal that directors
emphasize the manner of presentation (staging, set, costume, lights and special
effects) in an effort the elicit audience interest as in nineteenth century
Melodrama. Many contemporary films
suffer a similar malady.
In the Louvre there are paintings nearly
fifty feet long and twenty feet high. They are narrative works illustrating
imagined historical events. The
paintings are so long that a person cannot stand back far enough to view the
painting as a whole. (When I was last there they were hung in a walkway.) Rather it must be searched in parts. In such
paintings the technique of the artists are nothing to marvel at for the manner
of presentation dominates. The work is a
mere illustration of an imagined and possibly, imaginary, event. It is unusual as a result of its size which
is what makes it collectable for such a famous art museum but there is little
that is exemplary about such works. It is little more than billboard art. It doesn’t extend our understanding of the
art form as the manner of presentation dominates the work. Political and feminist artist of the
seventies often used their canvas to paint slogans that served their particular
political stance. In such cases the
subject matter of the works dominates the other two aspects which are merely
utilitarian; they are subservient to the subject matter. The integrity of their
work was sacrificed for ideology.
Fundamentally such works are dissatisfying because they are little more
than illustrations and we recognize that something has gone wrong. Such works are intent on broadcasting a
thesis rather that capturing our interest with intrinsic themes and ideas. We expect a work to be concerned with the
particular and not merely the general.
Perhaps the exception to this
argument is Diego Rivera, the Trotskyite Mexican muralist who sought to inspire
a sense of pride in a Nationalist and Socialist identity. Undoubtedly Rivera
was a didactic illustrator but his giant frescos also provide a learning
experience about the nature of frescos and the emotion they are capable of
inciting in a predominately illiterate population. Political and social
commentary is necessarily illustrative as the work of George Grosz
demonstrates. Grosz was often commenting of the plight of the poor in post war
Berlin.
The thesis I have been
supporting is that political and social commentary in art (if it is obvious)
presents us with a work that lacks integrity. What I mean by this is that the
message or subject matter dominates; the manner of presentation and the medium
used are subordinate aspects rather than being seamlessly integrated as part of
the whole.
Diagram 2. represents a situation where one
or more of the constituent parts of an aspect draws attention to itself as a
result of its ineptness. Many otherwise
fine theatre productions have been let down by a poor choice of costumes, inadequate
set, lighting, staging or venue. I
remember seeing a touring production of Dracula
in New Haven, Conn in 1985 with the fine actor Martin Landau. Though the play was intended as a suspense
piece the canvas touring set wobbled and shook whenever actors made an entrance
or exit and when Landau as Count Dracula was supposed to disappear he was
clearly seen crawling on hands and knees through a flap cut into the lower
portion of a canvas flat. The audience
responded by giggling throughout the production. The production broke the first rule of the
theatre; don’t show the audience what you don’t want them to know, they can’t
ignore it. Works that are performed are
more prone to such flaws for there is seldom the opportunity to correct them in
a live performance.
In the visual arts we sometimes find
paintings which show one of the constituent parts of the manner of presentation
corrupting the totality of the work.
Visit a large museum such as the Louvre or the Musee d’Orsay and you
will see large and wondrous Renaissance, Baroque and Neo Classical paintings
with even larger elaborate ornate frames which do not always serve the works
for which they were commissioned. Frame
making was once considered an art form itself and the wood carver and gilder
often had little idea of the painting for which the frame was
commissioned. They were concerned with
their own craft and the only relationship between the frame and the painting
was size. Recognizing the role played by
a frame, some artists painted a frame around their work directly onto the
canvas or panel. Others such as Van Gogh
and Georges Seurat sometimes painted their frames in the manner of their
works. Seurat painted with a technique
called ‘Pointillism’; small dots of pure color were used to paint a work
designed to be viewed at a distance.
Seurat continued the dots of color onto the wooden frame of some of his
works. Commercially painted frames age differently from the paintings they are
intended to compliment. Modern artists
tend to hang their works without frames.
As artists are continually experimenting
with new forms it should not be surprising to discover that some works become
self-referential; meaning that the medium of an art form can also be presented
as its object or subject matter. The
medium of theatre is performed language (Aristotle called it embellished
language). Peter Handke’s piece titled
The Ride Across Lake Constance
brings before us the issue of language and its conventions in performance. In The
Bald Prima Donna Eugene Ionesco raises the issue of the triteness of the
social use of language and its failure to impart understanding. Abstract painters such as Karel Appel,
Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko (to name but three of many) have all
experimented with pigments and their adhesives as the object of their works
(They also differ in their manner of presentation). Artists in other art forms such as Dance and
Music have equally offered us works where their particular medium was their
subject.
The medium of a work is one of the defining
characteristics of its form. The manner
(styles, techniques, tools, skills, etc.) by which it is presented, while many,
are finite (one of the reasons artists seek out new forms). When artists innovate and combine or enjoin
one medium with another medium such as combining paints with collage materials
an entirely new art form emerges and this new form requires different
techniques, skills and tools. Indeed,
some artists incorporate chance as a means of producing their works. Karel Appel’s action painting by throwing blobs
of paint onto a canvas is a case in point.
Of course the results of chance activities such as this are selected by
the artist for their seeming appropriateness; how they encourage us to use our
creative sensibility. Works deemed
unsuccessful are redone. Nevertheless
the fact that chance plays a role in a number of works should show us how it is
that such works as cat art and elephant art have a rightful claim as serious
art forms. Cats and elephants each have
individual techniques and styles, work on a number of different surfaces and
given the opportunity have been known to favor or choose particular colors
(though they are said to be color blind).
I have already argued that the creative act takes place in the mind of
the viewer so we do not have to attribute less or more to the works of cats and
elephants than we do to the works of other modern artists. We can still value the work in terms of its
medium of presentation, manner of presentation and object of presentation.
Noël
Carroll in summing up his formidable work on the philosophy of art writes; “The
question of how we go about identifying artworks is an imperative one for
philosophers of art. For without some
way to identify artworks, we do not know how to respond to them
appropriately. For example, we respond
to Ulysses by interpreting it,
whereas we do not interpret our toaster ovens.
How do we know that Ulysses belongs to a category that warrants
interpreting, while our toaster ovens do not?
This is motivation for the question of how we go about identifying
artworks.”Carroll,Noël
ibid, pp.265.
Denis Dutton questions how it is we come to
know new works can be recognized as art “…if we didn’t have some principle of
application which validates bringing new objects and performances under
it? There must be some stable elements
in its meaning; to deny this entails that we go about arbitrarily calling
anything art.”Dutton, Denis, But They Don’t Have Our
Concept of Art, in ed. Noël
Carroll, Theories of Art Today, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison Wisconsin (2000)pp231.
I have shown that the means of identifying
artworks is by attending to their art form; seeking out a work’s three aspects
and constituent parts. Only in this way
can we both depreciate and appreciate artworks.
Only in this way can we present verifiable grounds to show why and how
some works presented to us are not
artworks (I attend to this in a later post). Also we can show why and how some
works deemed mere novelty are actually sincere, valuable artworks. While I have emphasized form it should be
understood that what I have presented is not a historically formalist approach
which places an emphasis on the shapes and volumes and their relationships
within a work. In its place I have
insisted that traditionally the term ‘art form’ denotes a species of art; a
system of categorizing works of a kind as a result of the medium used. I have emphasized that we determine the
integrity of a work by assessing how seamlessly the three aspects and
constituent parts integrate; how they complement one another rather than be
shown to dominate. While integrity is
the only value I have placed on a work the opportunity to exercise our creative
abilities when engaged with a work may further enhance the work as a candidate
for appreciation.
Launt Thompson
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?field-keywords=Launt+Thompson&url=search-alias%3Daps&x=16&y=9
No comments:
Post a Comment