With a serious case of insomnia, I was happy to find an interesting article on ArtsJournal on the interpretation of art and if artists should really have to explain themselves. "Explanations are the traitor of art: Serious art defies easy interpretation, and artists should resist the call to explain themselves", an article written by Jonathan Jones for The Guardian's UK Art and Architecture blog.Jones references are highly on Britain's art scene but make some interesting points when it comes to artists having to explain their work. He argues, "No serious art is easy to interpret. Nor is there ever a single valid interpretation of art. If art is good, there are many things to be said about it and much that will remain unsayable." Hmm, yes...a subjective and relative point that any artist could take to heart.
However, something that unsettles this blogger is his argument that Public Art is to blame for the current trend of artists having to "explain themselves". By trying to make art more accessible to the masses via public spaces, artists are also having to make their art more "popular", in other words more understandable to their audience or benefactors (usually public agencies), be it by context or by aesthetic impression. Goodbye "mysterious, subtle poetry", hello "common, ordinary".
He even closes his argument by quoting Jackson Pollock, "The pictures I contemplate painting would constitute a halfway state, and an attempt to point out the direction of the future, without arriving there completely." He chose a good artist to reference as most people look at Jackson Pollock and think its work a toddler could duplicate. Yet those who can understand the nuances of Abstract Expressionism and can appreciate the emotional, aesthetic and historical qualities behind the work, would argue otherwise. Like I tell my students, art reflects the times and influences from the artist's life experience, thus there is a way to relate. Jones even goes as far to say that even Pollock would have difficulty in obtaining grant funds today without an objective and accessible explanation.
However, placing the blame on Public Art does not sit well with me. Maybe it's not so much an issue of philosophy, "Heck, what artist wouldn't like to be relieved of the pressure of explaining their artwork?" I think Jones makes some very valid points that should continue in the dialogue of art interpretation.
Yet, I think my issue has more to do with arts patronage and support, which is something I think taken for granted by Jones. While Jones believes that Britain suffers from an overwhelming amount of second-rate public art, here in Brownsville we are under-whelmed. No, colonial-style architecture and landscaping do not count (though very pretty). With a sprinkling of murals, statues and memorials, there isn't much of what could honestly be called a bustling "Public Art" scene; the most recent and visible efforts probably are the Greyhound Mural, North Bus Station Tile Mosaics and on a more grass-roots level, efforts by local artists to exhibit at local commercial establishments. As it is, our private and institutional art scenes are just beginning to flourish and still many a time find themselves in survival mode. One could even say that more Public Art would help with that by making art more accessible to wider audiences, thus peaking their interest in art and going on to support local artists, museums, galleries and art education programs.
Being in a location where we don't have the luxury of high arts patronage, I just cannot, completely relate to Jones's argument. Our public, our audiences need more exposure to art and it needs to be made more accessible. Public art is a great vehicle for such an education and experience. However, I can concur that art or its interpretation should not lose their quality over popularization (giving the masses what they want to see or hear). As much as art should inspire, it should also challenge (be it the viewer and/or the artist), but most of all, it should be honest. I almost want to say in it's honesty, the viewer can find simplicity or just plain truth through which to understand the artwork, no matter how complex or vague the subject; but I need to think on this thought a little bit more before I make it opinion, it's almost just too ideal.
No comments:
Post a Comment