A Correspondence about Art
“Does Art always make statement?” That is the question.
Response from an art teacher.
As I think out loud here, perhaps I can discover if I even know the answer to this question.
I'll start from my experience of making art. When I make art in a spontaneous way, for me the unconscious emerges through the "becoming" of the work. I am not wholly aware of what it is saying until I look at it a while, mostly afterwards. Amidst the process of making art, however, I am not interpreting or giving definite meaning to what I am doing. I am lost in it. The experience seems to accommodate me to know and touch in with the deepest ineffable parts of my psyche in the soul sense of the word. A non-verbal communication is going on, a communion.
If "spiritual" wasn't such a loaded term, I would describe it as a
spiritual experience.
It is perhaps mostly later that the work speaks to me or "makes a statement" on a rational /metaphoric level after I look at it a while. I know that even the metaphor and the work only becomes a touchstone to the bigger ineffable experience I just had. I know though that my work informs me about my inner life in relation to my world. Somehow it is a way of making a bit of the unknown known. Because my experience with the art that I make is so subjective it is no surprise to me that friends don't comprehend the depth of meaning that my work conveys to me. It seems to be appreciated however, but understood differently. I'm guessing, if they approach it from the right mind state it could speak to them on an unconscious level.
When I look at other's work it usually elicits a felt sense in me at least, even if it is boredom, or aversion. Some art seems totally flat and lifeless. I guess I it is easier to connect with a work if it expresses something that I relate to. I can't think of examples. When work feels life giving and accommodates me to understanding it usually is expressing something. It perhaps goes beyond just "making a statement". In truth, I haven't been exposed to a lot of art.
"Does art always have to make a statement?", you ask. I interpret "making a statement" means expressing something. It feels a little broader. Does it always have to express something? I'm guessing that everything in life makes a statement or expresses something and ones experience of it gives it meaning. Much of one's experience of art or life might be one's own projection onto art or life. As we re-own our projection onto the work it has the potential of informing us of our self. It may unconsciously speak to us of deep parts of being that may harken to even cosmic levels of consciousness. Perhaps the role of the viewer of art is to suspend interpretation and experience the work beyond the statement, beyond the projection. Now I am getting too deep here, so I will stop.
Your question makes me wonder if you don't have an idea about art making a statement yourself. I would be interested in hearing your perspective.
Yours truly's response.
My analysis of the question is founded on three fundamental issues that I think are at play here. 1) The question of spontaneity versus intention, 2) the question of interpretation, that of the viewer versus the artist, and lastly, 3) meaningless versus meaningful in an artwork. I suppose one must try to define what art is, before attempting to answer questions about art. To me, art is subjective and amorphous. Anything can take the form of an art, and vice versa, nothing can be labeled as art. It is up to the creator and also the audience. Maybe there are some intrinsic characteristics to what is art as oppose to what isn’t art. Such characteristics can be aesthetic qualities, abstractness, ability to convey thoughts, and etc. No matter what, people are capable of naming things as art, much like how one can see beauty in everything, if one wanted to believe so. Art, then, is a generic term used to describe created items, skills, and beings.
Creating “art” can either be spontaneous or with an intent. Yet, even spontaneity has a purpose in mind, subconsciously, and we are only aware of it when we reflect upon it or when others inform us. The best, and easiest example I can think of is dreams. We dream spontaneous as we sleep. We have no conscious control over what we dream. Yet, our dream contents originate from our memory of daily experiences, fantasies, personal thoughts and conflicts, as Freud would argue (even if he did focus more on the relationship of sex and dreams in his Interpretation of Dreams). In fact, we can probably dissect each dream we had, and understand why we had such a dream. Returning to art, I believe it is the similar principle. Whether art is created spontaneously or premeditated, there is some factor(s) that is contributing to how that particular art is created and eventually, completed. I agree with how you describe your art-making experience as a non-verbal form of communication. It would be hard to interpret the art whilst it is being created, but I don’t think one can exclude, or negate, the notion of an existing purpose to create the art. I think the purpose is what is being, or will be, expressed by the art.
Segue into the second issue, the question of interpretation. In general, people are often misunderstood. When it comes to something as subjective and abstract as art, the artists will feel that their art is unjustly interpreted. Even in writing, the readers, at times, will misinterpret my meaning or be confused. Interpretation is a challenging task, especially for the viewers trying to be faithful to the artists’ original intent. But, in art, I do believe that the freedom of interpretation is extended beyond the normal boundaries. In other words, there exists a freedom for various interpretations. For example, music can be considered as art, it simply communicates through audio means instead of a visual one. When I am playing a piece of music, say Chopin’s Barcarolle, I tend to express my emotion that is compatible to the flow of the music. I tried to interpret the piece by understanding the theme and imagine how the composer would have wanted it to be played. I have listened to 4 different recordings of the Barcarolle (to get an idea), and all four recordings vary, even the 2 recordings by Rubinstein differ. Then, there are times where I would play the piece the way I feel justified, and that could be misinterpreting Chopin. What it comes down to, I believe, is how the art appeals to the individual audience. Like you said, the depth of the meaning may not be comprehended, only if they approach it from the right state of mind. And the feeling of being connected to the art makes it more special and perhaps, easier to comprehend. Another example, Beethoven and Debussy both shared a composition interpreting the moonlight (Beethoven’s Moonlight sonata and Debussy’s Claire de Lune). Same theme, but different expression of it. Art paintings and sculptures are no exceptions either.
Some would argue that great art transcends time and can be appreciated through generations. The underlying reason is because the art is able to speak to everyone, but on various levels, and express a sense of connection to each particular audience. Like a book you never get tired of reading because every time you read it, you read it differently and it brings to you different things. Or music. Or on an even higher level, a person who you will always love.
With regards to the third issue, meaning in art, it depends upon the interpretation. Some art can be meaningless, while is meaningful to others. Therefore, is art expressing something? Is it making a statement? Personally, I don’t think everything is life express something. I think that human beings have the tendency to over scrutinize a simple matter in search for a greater explanation. We have an inclination to find meaning to things around us, yet the greatest answer still eludes us: the meaning of life. I don’t doubt that art is capable of expressing, but it doesn’t do it all the time. Furthermore, to me, expressing something is different than making a statement. Making a statement implies a more rigid action, where it lacks the flexibility in the interpretation. Making a statement is like taking a stand in an issue, with both feet firmly on the ground. And when art makes a statement, the artist is “forcing” the audience to take notice. On the other hand, expressing something allows more flexibility in the interpretation, and is the precursor to making a statement, without necessarily making a statement. When art is expressing something, the artist is merely presenting his/her ideas. This is why I thought your last sentence is profound because it eliminates the variability in the interpretation and it suggests the audience to live vicariously through the artwork and simply “experience it.” Letting our mind forget about what the art means to us and let the whole body/soul/spirit connect with it on an ineffable way. Much like how I listen to music, whether it be a live concert or a CD, I feel myself being carried by the music. I don’t interpret it. I don’t try to analyze it. I substitute music as my sustenance and allow it to flow through my body, in order to invigorate me.
In conclusion, art doesn’t speak to everyone and it doesn’t always make a statement. Art does express things, but doesn’t always contain a meaning. A sense of meaning is reached when art elicits an ineffable experience within a person.
You mentioned how you haven’t been exposed to a lot of art and I would have to correct you on that. Art surrounds us, we just tend to associate the traditional definition of art (paintings, photography, etc) instead of recognizing other non-traditional forms of art, such as the objects/landscapes depicted in “art.”
I’m not an art expert, but I appreciate art because of what it can do for me.
“Does Art always make statement?” That is the question.
Response from an art teacher.
As I think out loud here, perhaps I can discover if I even know the answer to this question.
I'll start from my experience of making art. When I make art in a spontaneous way, for me the unconscious emerges through the "becoming" of the work. I am not wholly aware of what it is saying until I look at it a while, mostly afterwards. Amidst the process of making art, however, I am not interpreting or giving definite meaning to what I am doing. I am lost in it. The experience seems to accommodate me to know and touch in with the deepest ineffable parts of my psyche in the soul sense of the word. A non-verbal communication is going on, a communion.
If "spiritual" wasn't such a loaded term, I would describe it as a
spiritual experience.
It is perhaps mostly later that the work speaks to me or "makes a statement" on a rational /metaphoric level after I look at it a while. I know that even the metaphor and the work only becomes a touchstone to the bigger ineffable experience I just had. I know though that my work informs me about my inner life in relation to my world. Somehow it is a way of making a bit of the unknown known. Because my experience with the art that I make is so subjective it is no surprise to me that friends don't comprehend the depth of meaning that my work conveys to me. It seems to be appreciated however, but understood differently. I'm guessing, if they approach it from the right mind state it could speak to them on an unconscious level.
When I look at other's work it usually elicits a felt sense in me at least, even if it is boredom, or aversion. Some art seems totally flat and lifeless. I guess I it is easier to connect with a work if it expresses something that I relate to. I can't think of examples. When work feels life giving and accommodates me to understanding it usually is expressing something. It perhaps goes beyond just "making a statement". In truth, I haven't been exposed to a lot of art.
"Does art always have to make a statement?", you ask. I interpret "making a statement" means expressing something. It feels a little broader. Does it always have to express something? I'm guessing that everything in life makes a statement or expresses something and ones experience of it gives it meaning. Much of one's experience of art or life might be one's own projection onto art or life. As we re-own our projection onto the work it has the potential of informing us of our self. It may unconsciously speak to us of deep parts of being that may harken to even cosmic levels of consciousness. Perhaps the role of the viewer of art is to suspend interpretation and experience the work beyond the statement, beyond the projection. Now I am getting too deep here, so I will stop.
Your question makes me wonder if you don't have an idea about art making a statement yourself. I would be interested in hearing your perspective.
Yours truly's response.
My analysis of the question is founded on three fundamental issues that I think are at play here. 1) The question of spontaneity versus intention, 2) the question of interpretation, that of the viewer versus the artist, and lastly, 3) meaningless versus meaningful in an artwork. I suppose one must try to define what art is, before attempting to answer questions about art. To me, art is subjective and amorphous. Anything can take the form of an art, and vice versa, nothing can be labeled as art. It is up to the creator and also the audience. Maybe there are some intrinsic characteristics to what is art as oppose to what isn’t art. Such characteristics can be aesthetic qualities, abstractness, ability to convey thoughts, and etc. No matter what, people are capable of naming things as art, much like how one can see beauty in everything, if one wanted to believe so. Art, then, is a generic term used to describe created items, skills, and beings.
Creating “art” can either be spontaneous or with an intent. Yet, even spontaneity has a purpose in mind, subconsciously, and we are only aware of it when we reflect upon it or when others inform us. The best, and easiest example I can think of is dreams. We dream spontaneous as we sleep. We have no conscious control over what we dream. Yet, our dream contents originate from our memory of daily experiences, fantasies, personal thoughts and conflicts, as Freud would argue (even if he did focus more on the relationship of sex and dreams in his Interpretation of Dreams). In fact, we can probably dissect each dream we had, and understand why we had such a dream. Returning to art, I believe it is the similar principle. Whether art is created spontaneously or premeditated, there is some factor(s) that is contributing to how that particular art is created and eventually, completed. I agree with how you describe your art-making experience as a non-verbal form of communication. It would be hard to interpret the art whilst it is being created, but I don’t think one can exclude, or negate, the notion of an existing purpose to create the art. I think the purpose is what is being, or will be, expressed by the art.
Segue into the second issue, the question of interpretation. In general, people are often misunderstood. When it comes to something as subjective and abstract as art, the artists will feel that their art is unjustly interpreted. Even in writing, the readers, at times, will misinterpret my meaning or be confused. Interpretation is a challenging task, especially for the viewers trying to be faithful to the artists’ original intent. But, in art, I do believe that the freedom of interpretation is extended beyond the normal boundaries. In other words, there exists a freedom for various interpretations. For example, music can be considered as art, it simply communicates through audio means instead of a visual one. When I am playing a piece of music, say Chopin’s Barcarolle, I tend to express my emotion that is compatible to the flow of the music. I tried to interpret the piece by understanding the theme and imagine how the composer would have wanted it to be played. I have listened to 4 different recordings of the Barcarolle (to get an idea), and all four recordings vary, even the 2 recordings by Rubinstein differ. Then, there are times where I would play the piece the way I feel justified, and that could be misinterpreting Chopin. What it comes down to, I believe, is how the art appeals to the individual audience. Like you said, the depth of the meaning may not be comprehended, only if they approach it from the right state of mind. And the feeling of being connected to the art makes it more special and perhaps, easier to comprehend. Another example, Beethoven and Debussy both shared a composition interpreting the moonlight (Beethoven’s Moonlight sonata and Debussy’s Claire de Lune). Same theme, but different expression of it. Art paintings and sculptures are no exceptions either.
Some would argue that great art transcends time and can be appreciated through generations. The underlying reason is because the art is able to speak to everyone, but on various levels, and express a sense of connection to each particular audience. Like a book you never get tired of reading because every time you read it, you read it differently and it brings to you different things. Or music. Or on an even higher level, a person who you will always love.
With regards to the third issue, meaning in art, it depends upon the interpretation. Some art can be meaningless, while is meaningful to others. Therefore, is art expressing something? Is it making a statement? Personally, I don’t think everything is life express something. I think that human beings have the tendency to over scrutinize a simple matter in search for a greater explanation. We have an inclination to find meaning to things around us, yet the greatest answer still eludes us: the meaning of life. I don’t doubt that art is capable of expressing, but it doesn’t do it all the time. Furthermore, to me, expressing something is different than making a statement. Making a statement implies a more rigid action, where it lacks the flexibility in the interpretation. Making a statement is like taking a stand in an issue, with both feet firmly on the ground. And when art makes a statement, the artist is “forcing” the audience to take notice. On the other hand, expressing something allows more flexibility in the interpretation, and is the precursor to making a statement, without necessarily making a statement. When art is expressing something, the artist is merely presenting his/her ideas. This is why I thought your last sentence is profound because it eliminates the variability in the interpretation and it suggests the audience to live vicariously through the artwork and simply “experience it.” Letting our mind forget about what the art means to us and let the whole body/soul/spirit connect with it on an ineffable way. Much like how I listen to music, whether it be a live concert or a CD, I feel myself being carried by the music. I don’t interpret it. I don’t try to analyze it. I substitute music as my sustenance and allow it to flow through my body, in order to invigorate me.
In conclusion, art doesn’t speak to everyone and it doesn’t always make a statement. Art does express things, but doesn’t always contain a meaning. A sense of meaning is reached when art elicits an ineffable experience within a person.
You mentioned how you haven’t been exposed to a lot of art and I would have to correct you on that. Art surrounds us, we just tend to associate the traditional definition of art (paintings, photography, etc) instead of recognizing other non-traditional forms of art, such as the objects/landscapes depicted in “art.”
I’m not an art expert, but I appreciate art because of what it can do for me.
| Permalink | 
