Yesterday started my class of art history. Though it remains somewhat fascinating subject (at least more so than mathematics or economics), it's also a bit of a disappointment. Two reasons for that:
#1 It's mostly history of paintings. Paintings (and much, much later, photographs) are, of course, a significant part of visual expression (which we study), but I'd have hoped for history of cinema to go along with it.
I did study a few courses of history of cinema while I was at open university, and I found it exciting.
I think that studying it would have benefited us as much as studying history of paintings.
#2 It's art history of Europe. Mostly. Okay, we live in Europe, but still. They have taught this to us before. We all are familiar with the Baroque and the Rococo and the Renaissance. Can't we be inspired by Japanese, Indian or Chinese art? Or why won't we study the Australian Aboriginal art, when study similar cave art in Europe nonetheless? Oh, Eurocentrism... The things we lose for you.
Anyway. We discussed a little about art. What is art, and so on. We all been through that conversation many times. But I thought I'd share some of my ideas.
It's often said that art is something that creates emotional response with the viewer. Or it's something that makes you think. But stirring emotions or delivering information is not enough, because almost anything can do that:
One can throw a bible in a toilet. You see it, and think "oh, there's a bible in the toilet". But is it art now? No, it's not.
Someone could throw a puppy in the oven, and then take a picture of it. Sure, looking at the puppy in the oven does make you sad. But it only makes you emotionally responsive person. Is the puppy in the oven a piece of art? No. It's a puppy in the oven. Take it off there!
Almost anything can create emotions or thoughts because we humans are feeling and thinking beings. But it's not enough to make to make something art. Existence of a reaction doesn't make the act an art form.
I think that neither is art a object. Not a single painting, film, book, cd or sculpture is art.
People nowadays easily qualify themselves as artists, if they happen to write a novel, or draw a picture, or sing well. And we know why. Being an artist does give one some glamour and prestige.
No. At least that's what they thought.
They weren't artists.
They were artisans. Craftsmen.
And they did handicraft, not art.
Ok. Saying that a sculpture like that is handicraft is a bit of a understatement. But the point is still there.
Artists create stuff. Painters and writers are on a same level as carpenters.
Object doesn't become art when it's inside a museum, nor when it's hung on the wall. It becomes a showpiece.
 |
| "Impression: Sunrise" by Monet. Beautiful painting, not art. |
Ok. What then is art?
I think that art is an experience. It's art if I watch it and get "the art experience" out of it.
It's something in between the object and the viewer, but is in neither. Art is a relationship.
I believe it's a bit like catharsis, but not as finished. If catharsis is a finished emotional state, "art experience" is something that ignites the process, and allows catharsis to happen. It's like a little enlightenment.
It's not a single emotion, nor a single idea. It's something greater and only barely perceivable by a mere human in a universe of astonishing beauty. It's what makes us grow towards good as persons.
But it's not a explosion in consciousness. It's a slow, peaceful opening of a door.
Our reactions to it differ. Some cry, others smile.
But if a object creates this art experience, does it make that object an art? Perhaps as individual perceives it. But there's no universal art.
To me, Mona Lisa isn't art. Experts have sold it to the world as the poster child of art, and perhaps that's what stopped it for ever being art for me.
Sure...
It's beautiful.
It's well made.
It's unique.
It has historical value.
But we have to separate beauty, fine craftsmanship, individuality and historical weight from art. They can be a part of artwork, but none of them makes an object art. There's a tons of great songs
Thus, "artist" should be regarded as a honorary title bestowed to few.
Bestowed by individual humans. Not by organisations. Not by experts and not by history. Not by the artist herself.
Today, I'm a mere artisan. But perhaps someday, to someone, I'm an artist.
J.
I heard that Bruce Springsteen will be touring in Finland. Hurrah! Springsteen's earlier show in the summer of '08 is the best gig I've ever been in.
Springsteen has had a huge influence on me. Rarely I've seen or heard art. Perhaps 15 times in my whole life. Here is two of Springsteen's three songs which I can recognize doubtless as works of art. Such a impact they've had in me.
Thunder Road:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJBYWgfIXdw&feature=plcp&context=C3cde139UDOEgsToPDskKU-RCbvFaiF5vvv_b4GlK-
Racing in the Street:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZTQc0-d5lA&feature=plcp&context=C31e4d51UDOEgsToPDskLG8mz71rhO3kL6Shn1orQ0
Teaching art history of Europe is actually quite understandable, because it differs so much from the art of other cultures(eg. what we call Islamic art).
VastaaPoistaSure, European art treks along the same tracks of having religious function and for a long time it seems that there's a tradition in the way to represent certain figures and events not to be parted with(and not much else is represented at all). But whereas Islamic art continues to cherish it's traditions(up to the point where the highest honor an artist can have is poking out your own eyes because you are able to create onto a page the traditional imagery you're required to without actually seeing), in Europe people start to find other functions for art. Portraits become a key to presenting one's status in society. Capturing the likeness of someone or something becomes very valued in both painting and sculpture. The function fades as art becomes valued in itself, as art. Most other regions continued down the art with a function-path.
I'm absolutely not saying that Islamic, or Chinese, or the art of the indigenous Australians is not worth teaching or learning about, but for us as Europeans who are being educated to work in a western culture it's more beneficial for us to understand the traditions that we've been bound to and that what is expected from us is innovation and regeneration of our cultural imagery, not repetition of the old(which I personally find kind of sad, why does "new" have to be the norm?).
And I'm curious about this: "Thus, "artist" should be regarded as a honorary title bestowed to few."
Why do you think the title of "artist" needs to be exclusive? I understand your idea of artist vs. artisan and find it quite agreeable, but I've always found the idea that the quality "artist" as some kind of cool kid's club is a little redundant. Are you not an artist if you refuse this title but continue to work on that which brought you your title? Continue to create the opportunity for people to experience that relationship you call art(and presumably succeed in doing so since the title is applicable)?
ps. Are you sure they aren't teaching you history of cinema later?
pps. The font is hard to read, which is a shame as you write so well.
You said that in Europe people found other functions for art (eg. capturing the likeness of someone). But why/how does this fade the function of art, instead of just creating a new function?
VastaaPoistaAbout understanding European traditions as European people:
Yes, I realize it's important for us to know that we use to have this thing called the Baroque. And that European art history is, of course, a lot closer to us, than, let's say, African.
But I also believe that we understand the exclusive features of our art better when looked side-by-side with others.
We could understand the global desire Man has for art, and the many shapes and forms it has manifested itself, depending on the cultural surroundings it happened to be born into. And be inspired by it, in a globalizing world.
Nevertheless, people know better what's theirs, when they also know what's not theirs. Thus we could understand European tradition better, and what makes European art truly European.
Also, when the subject is call "art history", I find it silly to limit history of art by region. Ok, if you really have to limit it, region or date is your best bet. But still, cultures influenced each other tremendously, and separating them for the sake of separation, might also separate the cause from the effect.
And the region of distinction (= Europe) itself is quite artificial, as I doubt Finnish art had few things in common with Sicilian art, or Portugese with the Polish.
By the way, I began to wonder: Is Russian art part of European art? Because I have a feeling that they kind of had their own thing going on.
About exclusiveness of being an artist:
In a conflict of "everything is art" vs. "barely anything is art", I always find myself with the barely anything -side.
Like I said, I think "the art experience" is influential, magnificent and rare, and I think not just anyone can achieve the honor of creating it.
But I don't think being an artist is like being... a Sir: the "noble artists" and the "mere artisan peasants".
That you either accept knighting or you don't, and once you do, you're good for the life.
I think it's more like "cool kid of school" type of thing:
If you say "I'm cool" then you're definitely not cool.
But if you say "I'm not cool" when everyone thinks you're cool, you're cooler than ever before!
You affect the title only by actions, not by words.
Instead of everyone wanting to be called an artist, I think we should rather elevate the value of being an artisan. If a picture is beautiful, unique and skillfully drawn, it doesn't really matter whether it's "true art" or not.
One should be proud of the privilege of being an artisan, a creator. If you're skillful, and people like your work, oh, even better.
ps. They could, but I haven't heard about it. But they better :P!
pps. I've heard that before, but so far I've been reluctant to change it, as I like it so much. I hate fonts that look mundane, TNR being the worst offender. That's why I prefer fonts that look hand-written. And I thought the font I've been using is a good compromise, as it's still quite readable unlike many other handwriting fonts (like Mithral, which is my all time favourite font, but is a bit hard to read). But perhaps I shall bend to public opinion. And henceforth, the font is bigger and blue.
I don't really have a lot to say as we seem to agree on a lot of stuff and as I don't really believe in the word "art"(it's kind of like the word "god" to me). I'll just tackle this one:
VastaaPoista"By the way, I began to wonder: Is Russian art part of European art? Because I have a feeling that they kind of had their own thing going on."
Russian art is(at least in our school and a few others I've attended) seperated into it's own little corner. Of course you can never fully separate styles by geography because -for example in Finland- artist's would study and gain their spurs in Paris, Moscow etc. so the styles would travel along with the painters.
As a bit of a tangent: art school in Russia is insanely different to art school in Finland. The idea there is more like you have to do everything exactly as it has been done before and then after you've graduated you can do whatever with your gained skills. Our painting teacher studied at the Repin Institute and later in some school in Russia and sometimes he goes into this full-on Russian painting mentor mode. If you disagree on a tint, you get called color blind.
ps to your pps: It's still hard to read :( I think it's because it's a handwriting-esque font, but too regular and pushed together. TNR isn't mundane! Helvetica is love! The blue is better, tho.
"Like I said, I think "the art experience" is influential, magnificent and rare, and I think not just anyone can achieve the honor of creating it.
--
I think it's more like "cool kid of school" type of thing:
If you say "I'm cool" then you're definitely not cool.
But if you say "I'm not cool" when everyone thinks you're cool, you're cooler than ever before!
You affect the title only by actions, not by words."
Okay, I agree we need to have some way of making a distinction in quality between Bruce Springsteen and -say- Rebekka Black. I thinks it's only fair we recognize some sort of merit to Springsteen that Black may not be worthy of(I mean "FUN FUN FUN FUN" compared with any of Springsteen's texts is... BLAAARGH!).
I just find "artist" as some sort of honorary position hard to believe in(and thus, it's really a shit-stirring thing to concern myself with). For me, anyone can be a self-proclaimed artist and I won't argue. It doesn't mean I'd necessarily be interested in their work, but I wouldn't mind them using that word of themselves.
I think it's because for me art is more of a belief-thing than anything. (You know, nobody can define the word for you, there are people who go fanatic over art and others who live full and happy lives without ever understanding what the big deal is, some people would be absolutely raged at the blasphemy of someone calling themselves "an artist" without any merit etc. I sense you agree with me on some level?) I've come to notice I don't really even care about the "what is art/ is this art / am I an artist?"-debacle. I just make stuff and that's enough for me :)