I remember going to the Cincinnati Art Museum with my mom. We were looking at a painting by Picasso and my mom makes the comment, "That's ugly." Well, okay. I guess she's allowed to think that. But then she says, "I don't know why they put it in the art museum. I mean, I could do that." Woha. Thems fightn' words. So I decided to explain to her about Picasso's background and the world he grew up in. I explained about how he was painting photographically by his teens and how, with the advent of the camera, this sort of style was no longer necessary. I explained how Picasso sought to grab attention, to make a statement by purposely skewing his figures, by making them so different from life. I pointed out how, if you look closely, you can see that the artist was educated, that he was applying all of the principles of design found in good artwork, and those that were violated were done so with purpose. He had done all of this on purpose.
She looked at me and said, "Whatever. I still could have done it."
I looked at her and said, "But you didn't."
When regarding any product, be it a painting, a poem, or dance, and when regarding any action, be it a smile, a posture, or glance, intention speaks volumes. These things are interpreted with or without the actor's blessing, taking on a life of their own, but intention still matters. Sure, my mom could have done that Picasso painting, but Picasso did it, and Picasso could have done much "better" than that and chose not to. His intention is what makes his work so powerful. The same work could have been produced by two different artists, the same passage written by two different authors, the same words spoken by two different people, yet the actions of one of each pair can possibly and most reasonably be more powerful than those of the other. And all because of intention.
And I don't believe anything happens without intention. One can argue that people do things unintentionally all the time, but I don't know that this is true. Things are interpreted by the world differently than the author has intended all the time, yes, but the initial intention was still there. And perhaps, if you subscribe to Freudian teachings, those unconscious slips aren't all unintentional either. Personally, I don't think that anything can come to be by accident; that is, I don't believe that anything has no purpose. And so all must begin with at least some sort of Divine intention, at least.
Penny, your conversation with your mom sounds similar to ones my friends and I have had. For example, Cubism, Really?
ReplyDeleteMy step mom went to art school and is probably one of the most creative and talent people I have ever meet when it comes to art. She actually quilted The Kiss. In contrast, I am probably the least creative individuals when it comes to art. However, regardless of my understanding of art theory (I leave that to the professionals) I still can appericate art. For example, I am not a huge fan of Dali, but seeing his museum in Spain made me appericate his work. I think one of the reasons individuals need to appericate art is for the reason you suggested above, Intention. Sure I think I could make paint splatter, but I don't think you could call it a jackson pollock. He was first to make paint spatter art. And the thing is he deserves the credit becuase he had the Intention to make it art. However, the question arises is that can this intention go to far? when does art stop being art? Is it possible? WIll it be art if the the individual attends for it to be art and the art world says it is so?
I'm not one to include vulgarity, but I feel that this is linked to this discussion. If you visit http://badatsports.com/2008/yale-art-student-uses-abortion-as-an-art-medium/ you will read about a woman who had forced miscarriages and collected blood from the miscarriages. She calls this 'art' and several 'artists' have praised her for her visionary work. I am reminded of a scene in the movie Batman (1989 version) where Jack Nicholson (as the Joker) refers to himself as the world's first homicidal artist; he delighted in killing people and using the corpses as part of his bizarre 'art.'
ReplyDeleteI do not share in the appreciation of art because I have little to no experience in the field and find it uninteresting, but I do respect those people who do find these works fascinating. I must, however, question the wisdom of individual opinions determining what is art and what is not art. Clearly, this field of work can and has been taken in bizarre and psychotic directions.
No one said there weren't people out there with crazy intentions... or psychos with good intentions and bad technique. :)
ReplyDelete