GUEST ESSAY
by Judith Davis
Your question about the responsibility of the viewer is important. Being an audience or a viewer is not a passive act and has a range of valid/invalid responses.
The primary responsibility of the viewer is to educate the eye. This doesn't mean agreement or acceptance of everything viewed because its the happening thing, because some mindless Ph.D gives convoluted reasons for the greatness of a work. It also means the viewer has to at times admit the eye can't judge a work because there isn't enough reference material internalized to give a valid opinion.
Every viewer has a right to say, 'that's crap' as long as a reason can be given for that judgment. The 'crap' opinion doesn't necessarily need a monumental reason. If the viewer's eye finds it obvious that's reason enough. An obvious work often has a political or social message. The viewer may agree with the message in the abstract, but find the obviousness of the work insulting.
There is also the work that would be good if the artist had used a different shade of green, had put this object over there, had made this object thicker or thinner, etc. There are structural problems within the piece that don't work. That work would be a failed piece, but not crap.
The primary responsibility of the viewer is when the eye is dumbfounded by the work. The brain stops processing and just wanders off into a soft wail of 'whaaaaat?'. The viewer can't say its obvious, can't say its failed, can't say much of anything except admit that it doesn't get it (although some times the viewer will not be put off because elements of the piece are likeable, example:the colors are pleasant, the graphic element is striking). At this point the viewer has to put the work on the back burner and think about it, research it, consider what elements the viewer likes/doesn't like and then judge if these are valid reasons. Then the viewer can decide if there is an issue of taste (i.e. I recognize the piece works and is important, but it doesn't resonate with me because I like more complex structure or I don't like work that is so busy or I don't like those color combinations, I don't like any paintings of dogs playing poker,etc).
Educating the eye for work on the back burner can take years. de Koonings pieces of big boobed women with huge toothy smiles were a problem for me. I could see they worked as a unit, that elements within balanced piece, the colors where appealing, but my brain was caught in the land of 'whaaaat?' and I knew I couldn't speak intelligently about these pieces. The local art museum had a very early painting of his that didn't help (perhaps going back to it now I'd be able to see how he was developing towards his toothy ladies, but the painting didn't give a key to his later work). So de Kooning was put on my back burner, an artist I couldn't discount because I knew my eye was lacking the key to understanding his work. I couldn't like him, but I couldn't write him off either. Years later I read an interview of Elizabeth Murray describing coming across a de Kooning painting when she was a student at the Chicago Art Institue. How she went every day to look at this work. Through her loving description of how the piece spoke to her I was given the key to understanding his 'artistic language'. My eye was opened to what he was doing, how he was doing it. I could then decide if he achieved his aims in individual paintings and whether his work was to my taste or if he was an artist whose work I could accept, but not necessarily like.
The easiest way to learn the language of a problematic artist is to find someone who appreciates the artist. Unfortunately today that is difficult as too many people accept all work without any critical appreciation. If it is made it is to be valued and they can't give valid reasons why they like any work. They don't have aesthetic values, although they may have plenty political/social explanations for the work. Political and social reasoning's are not interchangeable with aesthetic values.
Joan Mitchell's work looked like messy blobs when I saw them in magazine gallery ads. I could see her work was respected, but my brain couldn't get past the 'whaaat?' response. I got six large library books on her collective works (seeing how an artist's work evolved can be helpful to find the key to understanding, your viewer's eye evolves along with the artist). I didn't read biographies (although I did of course learn about her life along the way) because my aim was to understand the work and not to join a cult of personality. Each day I looked at her works and after a while my eye was able to recognize patterns and motifs that occurred in her work. After a few weeks I found that there were a couple of paintings that I really responded to, that I actually liked. I had found the key to understanding her artistic language. That doesn't mean I'm a big fan, that I swoon over each of her pieces. But I can look at her work and appreciate what she was trying to say and the methods she used to communicate with.
Each viewer's eye has had its own early training ground and some style's of work are more easily approached than others. It isn't the viewer's responsibility to enjoy, like or appreciate every work it sees. But the viewer's judgments must be based on values that can be described with reasons past one word epithets.
Lisa's comment that when jazz lost the melody is an excellent example of a valid judgment. She recognizes what speaks to her and what doesn't and has applied this to a break off point in jazz. You may disagree with her, you may love later jazz without melody, but you have to recognize that she has made a valid judgment based on a thought out criteria. She is a responsible audience. You could discuss jazz with her even though your view point is different because there are critical aesthetic issues to discuss between you.
The viewer also has a responsibility to think about why a piece of work is liked. There are graphic elements that zing the eye (i.e. eye candy) that at first gives a favorable response. The viewer must not be taken in, must have valid reasons for liking a piece as well as for not liking a piece. The viewer can even say, I know its just eye candy but I like it anyway, its fun, it makes me happy and that's enough.
The point is to recognize the work for what it is and then determine personal taste/aesthetics.
13 comments:
Thanks, Judith, for your contribution. It seems you have described a subjective mode for viewer responsibilities. Are there objective, and/or formal responsibilities for viewers?
How does one approach being a responsible audience to Jackson Pollack? How does one understand what he was trying to say? How does one acquire comprehension of his aesthetic values?
Do you like Jazz?
I would approach Jackson Pollack by finding a complete catalogue of his works in order to view his transition through various styles of painting which eventually ended in the drip paintings. If you come to him with a strong 'whaaat' and want to dismiss then be prepared to take a while to figure him out (i.e. it's not going to happen in a day). Try to flip through the pictures everyday (for weeks or as long as it takes). Your eye will start picking up patterns and seperating the trees from the forest. It would be nice if your city had some Pollack's to view first hand, although this can be dicey if they're lesser examples.
If you're the type who is more left brain then it might also be good to read the works concerning Pollack by his greatest critical champion, Clement Greenberg. Greenberg wrote volumes on abstract expressionists so you'll want to find articles specifically about Pollack. Please stay away from modern theories about Pollack. I recently came across the most laugh out loud revisionist theory of his work. The shame of it is people coming to that theory without previous knowledge to weigh it against. Sticking with someone like Greenberg who was of the same period and loved Pollack's work is better. Greenberg is readable.
Key elements to wrap your eyes around with Pollack are abstract expressionism and rhythm of movement within the works. There is a famous movie showing Pollack painting on plastic. The camera is beneath the plastic facing up so you're looking up at Pollack as he paints, you see the rhythm of him painting.
An important recent article made an interesting statement that Pollack's work is currently displayed incorrectly. That his work was never intended to be shown in huge cavernous chambers, but were to be close to the size of a wall. This changes the viewer's relationship to the paintings so it was an interesting point.
I would try to stay away from his biographies, although you will learn something of his life from comments made about his work.
If you view his work in person, remember that he combined different paints and apparently some of them have changed color over time (this isn't unusual to the modern era).
Personally I love Pollack (and jazz). But his drip paintings are what I call "Johnny One Note". By that I mean they were a dead end that didn't lend itself to be used as a building block towards another style (whereas Impressionists theories could be used by numerous artists whose works would clearly be of a style, but not copies of a specific artist). The real telling of Pollack's talent would have shown itself in a longer life and what he would've done after the drip paintings. Judith
Realistically, I think very very few people are going to educate themselves to this degree. For the vast majority (of Americans, anyway) "real art" ended with the Impressionists, and jazz ended with, I don't know, Dave Brubeck?
So the visual artist or musician who is interested in exploring unknown territory is stuck with a very tiny appreciative audience. And creatives who hope for a large audience are limited to reinterpreting what has already been done.
How do we negotiate this huge chasm in the creative landscape?
Thanks, Judith!
I've lived in two cities that had alot of Pollack works, and lived through a period when they were all the rage. I've never been able to get beyond his biography nor his drip abstract expressionism.
Since the issue we were speaking of was communication, I guess I was asking you more "What was Pollack trying to communicate?" Sorry not to be more clear.
Re Jazz, Occassia,try these:
http://www.chickcorea.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/69
http://www.last.fm/music/Wynton+Marsalis/A+Fiddler's+Tale
I think she's suggesting you do your own research. [grin]
I'm not sure what an "objective and/or formal" viewing responsibility might be, aside from refraining from vandalism. Did you have something in mind?
Is an artist always saying something? Or might an artist simply be doing something?
Is an artist always saying something? Or might an artist simply be doing something?
Ah. Blessed circularity.Those are the questions we began with. I will end as I began: No communication, no art.
Sorry, that's a logically untenable position. It's like saying it's not sex if nobody gets pregnant.
Does a work of art have to communicate to everyone who views it? Must it convey the same message to every viewer?
Or must a majority of viewers receive communication? Is a simple majority enough? How about an enthusiastic and comprehending audience of ten? Will that qualify the work as art?
What if only kids under eight respond to it? What if a whole lot of people "get it" because it's facile crap, like Thomas Kincade? Does that make it art?
What if, as is often the case, very few in its present-day audience understand it, but twenty years later people come to appreciate it? Was the work not art when it was first shown, and only became art later, when the audience caught up with it?
What if the artist intended to communicate one thing to one group, and then finds the work conveyed something quite unexpected to an unimagined audience? What if the artist passionately meant to say something and absolutely nobody gets it?
What if a body of work communicates powerfully to a lot of people, but hardly anybody sees it because galleries won't represent the artist?
Or are you really saying it isn't art if it doesn't communicate to you?
Oooooo! No need to get personal. Tom's statements are all crap because he has to have the whole art world communicate personally to HIM? ... maybe using simple one syllable words so he can "get it", poor baby? .. or maybe draw him a picture using primary colored crayons?
I've had my say. Who'm I to argue further with you on your own blog?
peace,
tom
No, I'm just trying to make some sense out of your insistence on such an extremely simplistic formulation. Since you're a generally a bright chap, this is something of a puzzle...
It might simply be a strong but irrational conviction, mightn't it?
Because I can't imagine a clear and consistent way of applying it as a even an approximate guideline, let alone a definition.
Dear Occassia, I said NOTHING about to whom, or when, or anything about the quality or the content of the communication. Despite what you suddenly think I am incapable of acknowledging or perceiving, all those variables of communication you cited apply across the whole of art. They are essential.
I simply maintained that the component of communication is necessary. Fundamental. That's neither simplistic nor irrational, nor is it a particularly difficult "guideline" to approximate. But it does seem to be a position that earns one the brunt of an ad hominem argument in return.
thanks for the dance
I thought the topic was the responsibility of the audience, the viewer, when looking at art. That was the topic I wrote about. I tried explaining a method of approaching art the viewer found challenging or incomprehensible. Since art does not have a mathematical formula that can be used to test the correctness of the object it is understandable when each of us comes to a stop in front of an object identified for us as art. I think it is only fair to convey a method of figuring it out so the viewer can decide how to determine the value of the piece viewed. It is valid for the viewer to realize he/she/it has to bring something to the table. There might be other suggestions out there on other ways to approach difficult work that people could share.
I admit that I am a sadly earnest person who strives to educate myself. I do not understand why anyone would bother looking at art if they're not going to do the work it takes to understand the language of the art in question. Why would I do someone else's work for them? Where would I begin without knowing their entire education in art and then try to fill in the gaps that I think will help them grasp the key?
I am not a teacher (this is quite evident), but I am an artist and a student of art. It amazes me that the general population considers anything beyond the Impressionist as too difficult to bother with. But it is a true enough statement. I wasn't writing for that disinterested population, but a segment with an interest in art.
If the audience/viewer refuses to educate themselves then where does that leave the artist? Communication by post-it notes on the canvas explaining the experience of a visual media that is suppose to enter the brain through the eye and not through the text reading center of the brain?
Why is it that no one attempts to read a book without being able to read the language, understand vocabulary, be able to string together the meaning of words into sentences, sentences into paragraphs and paragraphs into chapters, but that people expect to look at an object labeled art without any understanding of the medium/style displayed and either dismiss it or whine that it is too difficult to understand?
The visual arts seems to be considered unnecessary to study because people think that the mere fact that they can see is all that is necessary to understand what is seen. Judith
PS This took me so long to write that I guess its off topic at this point.
There's no accounting for taste.
I've known people who were genuinely moved by John Denver, or brought to tears by The Carpenters. I thought they were both treacle-encrusted hacks, but who am I to argue when some piece of crap inspires somebody?
These "artists" are obviously communicating to someone. Is that ALL they need to do to be artists?
Post a Comment