A RESPONSE TO JASON’S QUESTION

Jason asked: “What criterion makes a work of contemporary art good? Is it artist intention as discussed in class for being what makes art in general valid? And lastly, could it be that contemporary art has a different mission than the mission of art altogether? As the latter was an idea purposed in the introduction to Wartenberg’s book The Nature of Art.”

Jason, I find your observations astute and I resonate strongly with your reaction to the “Stag With Lightning In Its Glare” exhibit. Some of us “traditionalists” share your apparent confusion about contemporary art.

But while I read your post, I could not suppress a rising image in my mind of Professor Henry Higgins “sculpting” Eliza Dolittle (in My Fair Lady), not in an intended effort toward artistic creativity (although he ended up doing that in spite of himself), but simply because he could, and for no other apparent reason. I think every corpus of significant human endeavor, regardless of its shape or size, will always have those extremists who hang out about 2 standard deviations from the norm, and whose sole purpose for breathing is to find out how far they can push some artificial limit or boundary, simply because it’s there and they think they have the ability to stretch it.

In information technologies there are the hackers who truly think it is funny to break anything built by Microsoft, or any other target large enough to capture their attention. In The Sixties (which, in my opinion, did not begin until 1968) a whole subculture of Americans made it their mission in life (at least for a decade or so) to break down every artificial barrier of something they identified as The Establishment. Without the economic surplus created by the very Establishment they opposed, they would not have had the freedom to rebel as they did. In today’s economy, I think you will not find that kind of free-spirited rebellion. When people are consumed with locating the source of their next meal, there is not much energy left for eccentricities.

When I look at the paintings of Grandma Moses (on display in Bennington VT) I am hard pressed to see the genius there. That doesn’t mean she was not a genius; it only means I don’t see it. So when I view Grandma Moses, I don’t have an “art” experience, just as you and your friend did not have such an experience when presented with deer dung scattered across the floor. In my opinion, just because it’s in a museum doesn’t make it “art.” There can be no question that some contemporary art pushes the boundaries of human sensibilities. Perhaps it is supposed to do that, because until you find the ends, you cannot know where the middle is. And for most of us, about 97% or so, the middle is our comfort zone. I would not be too concerned about failing to understand or appreciate the fringes. The reason they are there is to delineate the middle, and in my experience, the middle way is where ecstasy resides.

THE QUESTION OF LITERACY IN ANCIENT GREECE

In his book A Preface to Plato, Eric Havelock argues that Plato’s so called “attack” on poets in The Republic is justified within the context of the Grecian experience 500 years BCE. Plato wrote his dialogues during a time when writing had only recently been introduced to Grecian society and therefore was reserved for the elite few. The populace at large was not only illiterate, but also an evolved oral-based society. As I understand Havelock’s argument, this meant that the poets (and the epics written by them) served a dual function: on the one hand, they were entertainment for the masses, but they also served as a repository for much needed information in order to maintain continuity within the society. In today’s world, Homer would be a walking Encarta encyclopedia in iambic pentameter!

It may be difficult for us, born as we were into a literate society, to comprehend such a massive ability to memorize, but in pre-literate society one had to memorize – there was no paper, no computer, no CD or DVD to relieve the human brain from that arduous task. I recently saw a PBS special on “The Story of India” which showed a family of Brahmin priests teaching their young sons (I would guess 4 to 5-year olds) the ancient prayers which cannot be written down because they are not words, and the sounds have no meaning. Recent studies of these ritual prayers found they have rules and structure, but no conceptual meaning. The closest thing they resemble is bird song! What a moving experience to be able to glimpse hundreds of years into our past and see a living example of a pre-literate society. Only Brahmin priests may learn these prayers and they have been orally preserved, generation to generation, for more than 2500 years! It was humbling to realize what a small part of the human story our American culture is.

So, in Plato’s world, where the masses depended on Homer and other poets to pass down the information that would maintain social continuity generation to generation, it seems natural for Plato to be concerned that, as time when on, these epics would be transcribed and solidified in writing. Plato knew that Homer was not an “expert” in all the various things he spoke of in his epics, and there was the danger that the people would accept as “truth” Homer’s version of say, for example, the order and methods of loading or unloading a ship. I think the “danger” of poets was not their oral recitation, since that had gone on for ages, but rather the codification of those recitations which then made it unnecessary for a person to use reason to reach a sought after truth.

This is really a “Readers’ Digest” version of Havelock’s argument (for a much better presentation, read the book! It is well worth the effort, in my opinion.) but it has nevertheless lead me to consider the idea of literacy or the lack of it, and what impact if any that would have on the political (that is to say, the wielding of power on the) events of the day, which, after all, is (I think) the underlying concern in Plato’s Republic.

I also found an interesting site on the internet at http://social.jrank.org/pages/939/How-Educated-Are-We-Functional-Literacy-Educational-Attainment.html and I was shocked to learn a full fifty percent of our citizens in the United States of America are only functionally literate.

Functional literacy is defined as “basic literacy for everyday life: the level of skill in reading and writing that a person needs to cope with everyday adult life.” After visiting this website, I began to think about how much politicians give lip service to education but rarely do anything about it (contrasted with the devotion Socrates and Plato exhibited for the need of quality education). So I ask: how does it serve the political power base for half the country to be functionally literate? How would our government respond to supporting the Foundation for the Arts, for example (an issue currently being attacked by the Republican base in Washington) if a full 90% of our population were critical thinkers? It would be an interesting Census test to determine what percentage of our population is capable of critical thinking, because the other 50% who are not functionally literate are not automatically counted as fully literate. Some percentage of that remaining 50% are illiterate! The implications of these statistics are staggering to me. Does anyone else share my trepidation?

MONET vs. UPSIDE-DOWN TREES at MassMOCA

Ed Damon asked: “Would those in Monet’s day consider this [the upside-down hanging tree exhibit] art? Or would they pass it off as a poor excuse for a work of art?”

I have not seen this exhibit, but I read some local reviews when the exhibit was first hung at MassMOCA and I’ve seen pictures of the trees.

I think it is rather creative to sculpt with living media, as opposed to marble, clay, wood, ice, etc. I wonder if there are biological-activists out there somewhere who would consider this exhibit to be “abusive” to the living trees. And it is somewhat amusing to find an artist in the position of having her art “talk back” as the trees overcame the force of gravity and turned their leaf-faces toward their source for photosynthesis. The curious child in me wonders if the trees would behave similarly in a room which only allowed moonlight, as well as a room where no natural light entered, but the biological-activist in me says either of these scenarios would surely be abusive.

In my opinion, in today’s art world, this living sculpture is an artistic expression (or was it a scientific experiment? I can’t remember for sure). Nevertheless, the sculptor who uses marble does not create the marble, so the fact that this artist did not create the trees does not in itself disqualify the exhibit from being considered “art.”

As for Monet? I think he would scratch his head in utter befuddlement.

However, the idea of sculpting with living media is appealing. Can anyone think of other “living” media that might be used in artistic expression? If you have ever attended an official Flower Show, you will immediately see where I’m going with this question. Do some flower arrangements meet the subjective and/or objective criteria to be considered “art?” I’ve seen some things done with decorative cabbages that would blow your mind away. The creative expression was commendable … but was it art? I don’t know … I’ve seen some outstanding creative ingenuity and expression in television commercials, but I don’t think anyone would call it art.

We refer to “the art of” about several things that are not in themselves “art.” For example, the art of surgery; the art of culinary delights; the art of playing golf? Surely there are many endeavors which require an artistic sensibility, a refined sense of control in the use of applicable tools of the trade, a creative application of all that is known about the endeavor – but none of this culminates in a “work of art” – or at least, not yet. As we humans have evolved along our genetic unfolding, we seem to expand not only our knowledge, but also our application of that knowledge within any given social structure. There may come a day when decorative cabbages are as acceptable as paint, chalk, ink pens, felt tip markers, and charcoal pencils as tools for the creation of art. After all, in the history (and herstory) of homo sapiens on Earth, we are the only valid authors. It’s our story and we can make it up however we choose.

WHAT IS ART?

In class today I was trying to verbalize a nebulous concept that has been floating around in my mind ever since we were asked the question, “What is art?” I suggested that the word “art” may not be a noun, and that would explain why it defies definition so strongly, but I could not say what form of language “art” is. As Professor Johnson pointed out, even if art is a state, (as opposed to an event or a thing) it would still be a noun. Upon further reflection, I’m now thinking “art” is an experience, regardless of its grammatical properties.

As an experience, art has two sides: that of the giver (the artist who creates a vehicle through which art may be experienced), and that of the receiver (the reader/viewer/listener who chooses to partake or participate in that experience. If this is true, then art cannot be found in the “thing” itself created. Rather, art itself remains invisible, a psychologically reinforcing experience (the kind that tends to be repeated) expanding across a psychic continuum from artist to … what? Isn’t it interesting, there is no English word to describe the consumer of art, much as there is no word to match lover (the giver of love) to whom? a “lovee”? (of course, I jest). But if the participants in the act of physical loving are both “lovers” then would it follow that both participants in the act of an artistic experience would both be “artists”? When art is seen as an experience, this would make sense.

As I write this I am listening to Beethoven’s Symphony No. 6. I am experiencing art in a way that cannot be matched by any other living soul, not even Beethoven’s (I’ll avoid the arguments as to whether or not Beethoven’s soul is “living” -- in my opinion it certainly is present in his music). Is it possible for someone else to have a similar experience listening to the latest recording by Will I. Am? I’ve heard it a couple of times in the past week and I admit to being moved, but it was a very different experience, and I’m not sure I would describe it as “art.”

Perhaps there is time element involved, a lasting quality through which the created vehicle of art experience must endure before it can be considered “art.” It is sometimes difficult to recognize contemporary expressions for their lasting values.

Trying to answer the question “What is art?” is as difficult as considering “What is beauty?” At the end of the day, a lot of words are expounded and nobody’s happy (just kidding). My brain works up to a certain point, and then it falls back on the old adage “I don’t know art, but I know what I like.” That may be a relativistic cop out, but it works for me.