Most of the artists today that are living and producing art are idiots. They are idiots because they continue to produce works for an audience whose vast majority will probably not even give two seconds of thought to what they see before them. Yet both idiots continue to interact indirectly with each other as one continues to produce while the other continues to mindlessly view the other’s product, both not explaining to the other why they continue to do so.
The argument can be made that art is not meant for the vast majority of the public. Contemporary art is meant for the socially elite and an artistically inclined intellectuals. In other words, art created for those that can understand then or at least appreciate them. An elite and social group that is outside the general public. And yet the major goal for most artists is to achieve some kind of gallery status.
The gallery is not some exclusive club where only a select few can view works of art. It is open to the general public in one fashion or another. As such, there is some level of obligation to the general public that every form of establishment has that is open to such a vast audience. Doctors have the obligation to explain as simply as possible their vast and often superior knowledge about the human body to someone that doesn’t understand why they suffered a heart attack at the age of forty-nine. Priests have the obligation to explain why Mary being a virgin is so important to the Christian faith. Even someone so low on the occupation latter like a cashier at MacDonald’s has an obligation to the customer on some level. Why? Because they are open to the general public.
Artists used to have an obligation to the public, but that was centuries ago when artists had some form of patronage. The artists of today have no such obligation to the public anymore. As such, their works get misinterpreted. With an audience where the majority thinks art is to look the way it did over a century ago, this should come as no surprise. It’s no different than how a writer choices to lay out the words on the page and what words to use. There is a target audience, but there also has to be an easy way into the piece. Most writers know this, otherwise they will alienate their audience before the first paragraph is even completed. Artists don’t supply that "easy in" as often.
This is the artist’s obligation to the public, to offer an "easy in" to the world of their higher thinking and use of symbolism. Without offering this to the general public, the viewer may be offended or just completely ignore the piece of work for one reason or another. Supplying that easy way in for a viewer that doesn’t know anything about modern art or the arts short of what they learned in public school. This is why landscapes in craft shows are appreciated more than an abstracted landscape in a gallery. The general public doesn’t have to think. They don’t want to think; they rather be told.
If art is a form of visual communication, then there is a way to trick people into thinking about the works. This is no different than posing a question in a classroom. The task is for the artist to figure out how to ask the question and aim it to a public that doesn’t like to think when they are not required to. This isn’t a lowering of high art; it’s merely supplying a door for the common denominator into that exclusive club that is high art.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Monday, March 06, 2006
Stepping On and Stepped On
This morning, spawned from an idea for a performance piece that I won't do until I have the courage to display myself as such, my mind is settled upon the idea of this morbid and somewhat stupid thought.
It seems that more and more often, I'm witnessing how many time people get offended by certain things. Little things like laughing at violence in a movie where that subject is a serious matter. Big things like how a politician said this about this subject that causes this group of people to get pissed off. Stupid things like supplying negative feedback only to be seen as bitching rather than helping due to the displaying of your own ignorance through the negative feedback, however well constructive it may be. Even things that shouldn't even piss people off but do like theme park attractions and cartoons.
There is always something that offends someone that causes some kind of action. Verbal, physical, psychological, and even visual offences cause verbal, physical, psychological, and other forms of action that end up offending other people continuing the circle.
It's strange, because in the course of these, someone somewhere always says "I wish they would just die." Some even go so far as to try and kill the offender. But what does that cause but nothing more but even more offence? Immediate satisfaction leads to more problems, as what may be good for you is not good for everyone else around you. Conversely, what's good for the people around you may not be good for you, and so what then? What do you do in that situation?
There's a message board game I started on Gaia several months back called "What if." In it, we ask mostly stupid questions along the lines of what if this happened. The next person must answer it before asking another 'what if' to keep the game going. Two posts (a question and an answer) didn't make me chuckle or at least think of how stupid the two where. The question was What if the world was one nation? The answer? We'd be in a constant state of civil war.
It makes sense to me. Nobody can agree on anything; we all must compromise. Even then, our compromises cause so many other offenses directly or indirectly. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy offends the gay community because it is implying that the armed forces and even the country they serve don't want to protect homosexuals. Civil Right groups are probably just as upset as you and me that the KKK is still allowed to hold meetings and scout new members. What I write here pisses off a few people because they may read this as angsty writing from someone with the mental age of a teenager.
And to think, somewhere someone is foolishly wanting world peace. There's no way we can get that, and some of us know it. The world will always been at odds with itself. The environmentalists will always be against those that construct and pollute, who in turn will be against those that are pressing against them to stop giving jobs to foreign countries, who in turn are pissed because of the foreign influence coming in and destroying their tradition, which in turn is seen as pagan because it doesn't worship the same god as this religion over here. And so on and so on and so on.
Why can't we just leave people alone? Why do we, as social creatures, insist on making everything my way or the highway? Even when we don't, why do we try to come up with something that fails in the design to please everyone involved in the ordeal?
We offend each other because we can't find that balance. We probably don't even know what it is we need to balance, which may be beyond the obvious.
The only thing positive right now is that peace and compromise of any kind on any level, global or personal, cannot be achieved if with every new developing generation there is a fresh bed made for growing offences. That's why I'm offended when I see protesters taking their children to demonstrations when the child has no idea why their parents are protesting.
It seems that more and more often, I'm witnessing how many time people get offended by certain things. Little things like laughing at violence in a movie where that subject is a serious matter. Big things like how a politician said this about this subject that causes this group of people to get pissed off. Stupid things like supplying negative feedback only to be seen as bitching rather than helping due to the displaying of your own ignorance through the negative feedback, however well constructive it may be. Even things that shouldn't even piss people off but do like theme park attractions and cartoons.
There is always something that offends someone that causes some kind of action. Verbal, physical, psychological, and even visual offences cause verbal, physical, psychological, and other forms of action that end up offending other people continuing the circle.
It's strange, because in the course of these, someone somewhere always says "I wish they would just die." Some even go so far as to try and kill the offender. But what does that cause but nothing more but even more offence? Immediate satisfaction leads to more problems, as what may be good for you is not good for everyone else around you. Conversely, what's good for the people around you may not be good for you, and so what then? What do you do in that situation?
There's a message board game I started on Gaia several months back called "What if." In it, we ask mostly stupid questions along the lines of what if this happened. The next person must answer it before asking another 'what if' to keep the game going. Two posts (a question and an answer) didn't make me chuckle or at least think of how stupid the two where. The question was What if the world was one nation? The answer? We'd be in a constant state of civil war.
It makes sense to me. Nobody can agree on anything; we all must compromise. Even then, our compromises cause so many other offenses directly or indirectly. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy offends the gay community because it is implying that the armed forces and even the country they serve don't want to protect homosexuals. Civil Right groups are probably just as upset as you and me that the KKK is still allowed to hold meetings and scout new members. What I write here pisses off a few people because they may read this as angsty writing from someone with the mental age of a teenager.
And to think, somewhere someone is foolishly wanting world peace. There's no way we can get that, and some of us know it. The world will always been at odds with itself. The environmentalists will always be against those that construct and pollute, who in turn will be against those that are pressing against them to stop giving jobs to foreign countries, who in turn are pissed because of the foreign influence coming in and destroying their tradition, which in turn is seen as pagan because it doesn't worship the same god as this religion over here. And so on and so on and so on.
Why can't we just leave people alone? Why do we, as social creatures, insist on making everything my way or the highway? Even when we don't, why do we try to come up with something that fails in the design to please everyone involved in the ordeal?
We offend each other because we can't find that balance. We probably don't even know what it is we need to balance, which may be beyond the obvious.
The only thing positive right now is that peace and compromise of any kind on any level, global or personal, cannot be achieved if with every new developing generation there is a fresh bed made for growing offences. That's why I'm offended when I see protesters taking their children to demonstrations when the child has no idea why their parents are protesting.
