Analysis of art, November 2004
I have read a lot of analysis of art. It seems an unusual thing to do; to analyse a piece of art.
There is a lot of discussion about the meaning of the work; the historical and social significance of the work.
Each great artist seems to be part of a movement; a group of artists with a common vision.
These groups invariably write a 'manifesto' explaining the rationale behind their work.
There is a lot of 'never' this, 'always' that, and 'above all' the other.
It seems counterintuitive to accompany your art with an explanation. Art is what an artist produces,
for his own reasons, his own goals; it has a meaning for him. Art is what people look at for their own
enjoyment and edification; it may have a different meaning for each viewer. If a viewer does not enjoy
the work, it is not a failure of the viewer. If the viewer does not understand the meaning of the work
to the artist, it is not a failure of the viewer. Neither is it necessarily a failure of the artist
or the work, unless it was intended to convey that meaning. An explanation should not be provided so
the viewer can 'get' the work; so they can understand what they had failed to understand before.
It may be interesting to know what the artist thinks of his work, but it does not make it a better piece of art.
If you do not like a painting of mine, an explanation does not make you like it; it will not make the
painting better in your eyes. Neither does the absence of an explanation make it a poor work.
An artist may make statements about his art, or he may make statements about what he thinks of art;
what art he likes. It is strange for an artist to make pronouncements about art in general;
what it should or shouldn't be. These manifestos often do this; they describe the group's approach towards art,
and they go on to say what is wrong with other art. I cannot see the benefit in this, or the justification for it.
I could never hope to define what makes a good approach to art; to try to do so seems futile.
You could not make such a statement without being proved wrong. What is so fantastic about art is
its ineffable quality; it is very hard to define, very hard to predict, and infinite in variety.
With all these manifestos, all these approaches, there is still success and failure. Each approach will
yield masterpieces and the mundane. Art needs the variety of multiple approaches. It needs flexibility;
no hard and fast rules. In writing a manifesto, I would be describing my interpretation of my approach;
building walls around my creativity. I think this is not a beneficial thing to do. The approach of asking,
"What am I doing here? What is my approach to art?" and then applying that to one's work is certainly not
guaranteed to improve that work. I think that it restricts and deadens creativity. One of the things I
enjoy is painting in many different styles. I do not know how things will turn out, and I am intrigued
by the directions this takes me. The conscious mind is a subset of the brain's operation, not a superset of it.
I cannot guide my work by what I am conscious of doing alone; I must leave much of the work to my unconscious mind.
The images I see that I feel the urge to paint frequently flash into my mind with little conscious intervention.
Having a consciously designed formula for producing my artwork could not benefit this process.
Here I am contradicting myself; saying what you should or shouldn't do. I apologise. I am just saying what
works for me. Analysis of art is interesting, but should not be the yardstick of art.
|