The Obligation of the Artist to the General Public

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.