Reviewing the Arts – Summer 07

12 responses so far ↓

• 1    John // May 31, 2007 at 12:42 pm

  How do the authors of the assigned readings view the relationship between art and its audience? Does art have a greater responsibility to its audience than the audience to art? Do any of the essays we’ve read reflect your own beliefs? How?

  ————

  I believe that the relationship between art and its audience is one of continuous, equal exchange. The only responsibility the art has is to be true to itself and be whatever is wants or doesn’t want to be. As a result, art, according to Jeanette Winterson, “can waken us to truths about ourselves and our lives; truths that normally lie suffocated under the pressure of the twenty-four hour emergency zone called real life. Art can bring us back to consciousness, sometimes quietly, sometimes dramatically…” She continues by saying that “the responsibility to act on what we find, is ours.” She is saying that it isn’t the art’s responsibility to encourage or inspire one specific meaning or feeling, but to simply exist and let the audience do what they want with it. In turn, in my opinion, the audience’s reaction to art further inspires the artist and creates the opportunity for more dialogue, more ideas, and more art. Winterson supports this idea: “The dialogue continues between object, maker, owner, viewer, listener, reader.” I often hear artists (primarily musicians and writers, for some weird reason) talk about how they love to see and hear their audience’s reactions to their work because sometimes it gives new meanings to them and inspires new work. I think that is one of the amazing potentials of art – to act as a forum for the exchange of ideas, to challenge concepts of authority, and to blur lines between creator and viewer and reviewer. What Thelma Goldman refers to as “postblack” or “postethnic” art in Holland Cotter’s essay similarly created the space for people to talk about identity politics and social theories of race and ethnicity (among other things) and challenged many of the preexisting dominant ideas surrounding those issues. According to the essay, many people challenged postethnic art as limiting what those artists could and could not create art about and even went as far to create the idea of “victim art”. However, just by the fact that the dialogue was opened up about social and political issues surrounding race and class shows the UNlimiting potential of that “movement” of art.

• 2    Elizabeth // May 31, 2007 at 1:23 pm

  Jeanette Winterson said that art can’t change your life. She compared it to the latest diet craze and that it doesn’t offer a “quick fix.” I agree that it doesn’t offer a quick fix, however, I believe that art can change your life, if you let it. And, to a degree, I would also compare it to the latest diet craze. Whatever the diet is, if you follow directions, it can absolutely work for you. Art is the same way, if you love it enough, understanding it or not, it can have an impact on your life. For example, if you look at a painting and are attracted to it, at first glance, it doesn’t do anything to you, but if you look at it harder, you find your own meaning in it, and that can change your life. The same goes for writing. If you read something and are engaged by the writing, perhaps even relate to it, it can have a great impact. Art can be, but isn’t always a “hot commodity,” art is meaningful and has feeling. Art can change your life, if you let it.

  The exhibition called “Freestyle” that was meantioned in the multiculturalism piece includes “postblack” art. That is, a new generation of African-American artists that created pieces that deal with issues such as race and politics. The artists approaced their work with both convictions and questions, along with personal data. I find that facinating. Of course, this isn’t really a new thing, it has just been given a name. It’s new to me to hear about or see art by different cultures that don’t blame someone else or another group of people for their hardships. I love to hear about personal things: stories, pictures, memories. I find them engaging in a way that I have a chance to experience what someone else had experienced that I possibly counldn’t have experienced on my own. In this way, I can learn potentially valuable lessons and receive advice I otherwise wouldn’t have gotten. I consider this life-changing and valuable.

• 3    Kaaren // May 31, 2007 at 1:52 pm

  Holland Cotter discusses the idea of multiculturalism in art in “Beyond Multiculturalsim, Freedom?”. He explains even though multiculturalism rose in the 1980’s and 90’s, non-whites continue to be othered within the art world, made into tokens whose messages are interpreted by art “elites” only within the paradigm of their perception of race. Cotter explains, “exhibitions of Latino art united artists of different cultures under a few constantly repeated themes politics, spirituality as if those were the only terms in which their work could be understood”. Because art “elites” have already molded their ideas of what a particular artist’s work is supposed to mean based on racist categorization, they don’t give the same amount of depth or thought in interpreting art by non-white artists, thus continuing the cycle of marginalization. It is impossible to create anything outside of one’s own identity; for example because I am white, I can not create art that completely escapes my constructed American idea of whiteness, no matter how much knowledge I think I gain. However, if I were to have an art exhibit, the show’s title would probably not read “White American Art”; it might instead just be called “American Art”. Why does this sound ridiculous when talking about whiteness, but not when talking about anything non-white? This is the process of “othering” that Cotter identifies, and it’s a prime example of how racism works in the United States in every aspect, including in the art world. So how do we stop this cycle? The solution is not to deny our identities or forget our backgrounds when we look at or create art, because it would be impossible to completely untie that to which we are inevitablly culturally bound. So in order to move towards the “post-racial” art world that Cotter refers to, we must begin to understand that meaning isn’t inherent in race. We construct what race means to us, in the exact same way as we do with art. While an artist does put specific meaning into their art, the viewer also creates their own meaning when they view art, and these two interpretations will never be exactly the same. Perhaps we can actually begin to have a paradigm shift if we take each piece of art as an individual entity with its own meaning, instead of trying to stuff it into what we think we already know about the artist. As Jeanette Winterson reasons in “What is Art For?”, “as you withdraw your energy from the world, the artwork begins to reach you with energies of its own”.

• 4    Laura // May 31, 2007 at 3:00 pm

  According to each author, what makes art valuable? Must art carry a message? Must it demonstrate technical expertise? Or must it simply be aesthetically pleasing?

  “Most people would not admit that art is essential”, Jeanette Winterson brought up a good point in that many don’t really think that art is important. Yet almost everything around us is art, not everyone would notice it or even agree with that but in some ways it can’t be denied. I can really believe that the keyboard I’m typing on is a piece of art; I don’t think that it has to be hung on a gallery wall to be called “art”. I call it art though because it is what I believe. No one has to agree with me because what you think art to be is up to your own interpretation. I agree with Jeanette’s article with that fact that as much as people think that “art” is there for the people who are willing to frivolously spend their money on it. That really art is for everyone and is a human necessity; it surrounds us daily and like Jeanette said, “it may not change your life” but it may inspire you, or make you remember something, or make you feel calm.
  In Ted Cohen’s article about high and low art posed many good questions as well. Cohen seemed to believe that art was valuable to everyone. He also believed that there may be a high art that appealed to snobs and a low art that appealed to vulgarians and that sometimes they appealed to both groups. In my mind there may be a “high” and “low” art, but I think that it just depends on each individual. Some people believe that art should and can be functional and some just think that it should be aesthetically pleasing. You can’t really narrow down what art should be or is because no one will agree on just one thing. It comes down to individual interpretation and beliefs and that is how it should be. There are so many forms of art out there that appeal to many different people and that’s because were all different and if you think that throwing jelly on a fence and playing jazz out of a foot shaped radio is art, that it is art and it is valuable because it what you want to do and it makes you and maybe others who view it happy.

• 5    Cheryl // May 31, 2007 at 3:39 pm

  As a painter and printmaker you are faced with questions from instructors, peers, strangers like “what type of art do you paint, what do you like to paint, and have you sold anything?” These three articles seem to play advocate and devils’ advocate to the life of the visual fine artist. I was reading The Guardian while at the fitness center on the elliptical machine and found myself slowing down as I was drawn into the article. I just left a job/career I’d had for 20 years to return to school…a decision that was tremendously difficult, but made one afternoon while painting decorations for a special event. I found that while creating, as Jeanette Winterson suggested the experience of the viewer, my outside world vanished…and the energies of creating the piece became my life; everything else ceased to matter. I knew that I needed that connection to my artistic self to be happy, i.e. as Winterson suggested, art cab change your life. I have been in school now for one complete semester, this being my second. I had been divorced from the “art-world” for ten years and forgot the didactic aspect of art. The what do you create, why do you create, who are you creating it for, what is the viewer going to get from it, who would buy it, what audience are you making it for, will you ever be successful if you don’t present a confrontational message in your art… and honestly I did not miss those aspects of art-school.

  I am a painter, a representational painter as stated in my artist statement. I feel that that should be enough of an explanation and I should be able to create art through my individual vision as Winterson suggests, not looking at art as a factory or part of a production line. I understand the market of art and that people purchase art because they see it as something that makes them a better person, or they will look cultured or aristocratic to peers, but as Winterson stated, if the world turned to rubble, art would still exist through artists installation of the rubble. You cannot disassociate people from their emotions and that is why being an artist makes you envied. People see artists as someone who’s one step ahead of the game…they understand their emotions just a little bit better than most and are able to transfer that to a canvas or song or poem.

  I think it’s that envy that creates these sectors of art audiences; those who understand it and those who don’t, or those who think they understand it and those who don’t. While reading the article by Ted Cohen, he touched on so many ideas and areas of why artists create art, but took a vastly different approach from Winterson. Cohen dissected the idea that artists had to create art for the high audience or low audience, which would then classify the art into a category of high or low. He stated that if the artist did not do that they the art was unsuccessful. If the artist tried to find a universal appeal then the art was fraudulent. However he presented a paradigm shift in the middle of the article when asking the question regarding if you love a piece of art does it matter to you if another person also loves it, but for different reasons?
  I believe most would say it does not, as would most artists. If an artist is creating work because they believe in the subject or they love the materials they are working with, or they are trying to emulate an emotion through an aesthetic appeal they are creating art, in my opinion, in the true sense. The audience is a secondary notion unless the artist is under contract or driven by the market.
  These ideas were the subject of the article by Cotter. I can identify with Cotter’s article as an artist; especially on returning to the field and being forced to choose what subject I am going to produce. I can’t create a portfolio until I decide what I am trying to convey, what market I am trying to appeal to, what lyrics I want my artistic voice to speak. Art is, unfortunately a social bi-product. As with the multiculturalism ideal that artists of a certain race or culture were only going to be successful if they were creating art that for a specific cultural group and with a political or social theme. This ideal is tremendously market-driven making it intensely harder for minority artist to be successful if they want to create art for the beauty and aesthetics of the creation. Cotter states that artists can change that, however he stated also that curator and critics skew the market. If curators and critics bring the factory-like setting of art to the artist and developing art for art sake will never sell. Those not creating the art drive this business, this “creative” business, which should be driven by those who can put emotions into a 2D or 3D or 4D representation. Therefore, the questions of who its made for, what category it fits into, what realm of expression, will it sell and who will buy it, and will it be successful if it doesn’t “say” something specific to a specific group will always be the secondary set of circumstances the artist has to face.

• 6    Kevin // May 31, 2007 at 6:03 pm

  The underlined idea of what makes art is the audience. This in turns questions the role of the artist. As Cohen implied, can art really be made without an audience in mind? I see art as a breathing living being whose beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The value in art according to Wintherson it ability to create an inward transformation. But again the value of art is in its audience. In all each author Cohen, Winterson and Cotter implied that the value in art is based on it’s connection to the audience, in that should lie arts true value, but because of our consumer based society the marketing of the art is at times twisted. Winterson speaks on the and period of art labeled post black or postethniticity, his major concern was that labeling art would create a balancing act between its universal acceptance or create it as a short-lived, marketable product.
  I do agree that the value of art is in the viewer. However, the major issue is the labeling of art. We need to label it to help recreate and relay it emotional importance. Labeling art separates it from audiences.

• 7    Collin // May 31, 2007 at 6:07 pm

  When reading both Winterson and Cotters articles I question why someone must look at a painting and judge it by value or artistic merit? Art is art, whether you like it or not. That creative inspiration is the art, not the result of that imaginative drive. Einstein once said that, “You must trust your imagination because it is the one true preview into the future.” I just cannot fathum anyone other than Andy Warhol looking at a picture while painting it saying, “This masterpiece looks to be about 10 million.” No one gets their creative drive from the money and all of these writers are giving insights into their work through the idea of their opinion which traces back to them getting paid by the publisher….

  In class Kevin (I think) stated he felt no emotional response through the Campbells Soup Can picture. However, if he felt no emotion then why did this painting continuously appear to him as something he didn’t like. Yet that emotional response was felt through hatred which completely cause me to believe he was contradicting himself. Contradiction our class is wide felt and the idea of stereotyping or segregagting ones self through artwork seems to be a con in my eyes. A good artist once told me that if one specializes themselves and focuses on one subject then that persons creative drive is lost and they as an artist are lost….

  In the Cotter article they talk about “post-black” art. How can someone seriously categorize something such as art and give it a name. Can’t someone just draw something and say that it is their creative drive??? Art should never exert a certain message because the intial thought and message that went into its creation is enough to sustain life. As long as the artist felt that imaginatory emotion and action then why must someone else appreciate their work. Like I always say, “I will never respect another viewers opinion if they themselves have not personally gone through the process to make the artwork themselves”………

• 8    Nicole // May 31, 2007 at 6:26 pm

  Across all readings assigned, the question of art’s functionality is at the forefront. And because we associate function with value, all art is thrust into the purgatory of a capitalist system in flux. Art never knows what it is worth and neither do we. The art critic Dave Hickey makes the assertion that art is not in fact a commodity; it is not silver, gold or grain. Buying and selling art is merely a trade of one piece of paper for another. Both of these papers have attached values, suggested values determined by innumerable factors. So when Jeanette Winterson draws a parallel between number of times viewed and “worth” she is making an apt observation of actual value. Of course she makes this connection with sardonic wit uneasy to the reader. The artsist-reader feels the guilt and shame in the supposed prostitution of their craft and the regular, perhaps “vulgar” reader may find it a discriminatory remark. In their eyes spending one minute with a piece of art is to give it what it justly deserves. Time is precious after all.
  There is an interesting connection with time and value. Often worth is ascertained on its very basis; i.e., the art is good because the artist spent a great deal of time on it. Or the art is good because I wanted to spend a great deal of time with it. The art is great because it is timeless….so on and so forth. The truth of the matter is that viewers don’t want to give too much of their time at all; art is liked or disliked on the basis of first impression. How many people go back to look at a work in a museum day after day for a year, with the intention of gaining a most accurate opinion?

• 9    Carolyn // May 31, 2007 at 6:28 pm

  Art has never been a booming commodity to be consumed for the sake of capitalism, as pointed out by Jeanette Winterson. Art certainly has great value to a certain population, however, dependent upon the art that is in discussion, there is also a depedency upon whether it’s considered high or low art, as discussed by Ted Cohen. I think that it is easy to tie together the ideas of Winterson and Cohen because Winterson reflects on the idea of art not being a part of “a money culture (that) wants the figures, the bottom line, the sales, the response, a return investment, it wants money.” Art, then is made for art’s sake. Art then, in Cohen’s opinion, may be more heavily based on the idea of who is consuming the art and who the art was made for.

  Ultimately if art is made by the artist for themselves and without a target audience in mind, then Cohen believes that this aids in creating a viewer appreciation towards the art. However, an artist that creates art for an audience in order to appeal to them or sell it to them, then this creates an idea of capitalism, as discussed by Winterson, and thus defeats the purpose of artisic vision and lends itself to our non-artisitic “money culture.”

• 10    Gabriel // May 31, 2007 at 6:38 pm

  How do the authors of the assigned readings view the relationship between art and its audience?

  According to Cohen differant levels of art (High, Low) appeal to differant levels of people(High and Low). Cohen uses to descriptive terms to describe the levels of people: Vulger and snobbish, which to me have negitave conotations, but he later adds that this generalization does not fit all audiences. The main idea That I have got from reading this article is that a single piece of art or artistic concept can have a completely differant affect on two differant people. I liked Cohens article because of his colorful storys describing situations, like the one about playing billiards with his friend from Delhi . in this situation he uses the interpretation of a joke as an example of how art can take on multiple interpretations such as being able to move others and some not, and in some situations offending others (Though according to Cohen his friend was no offended).

  He also discusses his ideas on catering art to higher or lower audiences, I think that this is where vulgarity fits in to the equasion as far as apealing to those considered ” Lower” and snobbishness towards those that are “Higher”. For this concept he uses the examples of pop art for the example of “lower”, and classical art as an example of the “Higher”. To answer the question of where I fit in to “Higher and Lower art” I feel that I would fall more into the category of Higher art because I listen to and perform Jazz and Jazz fusion genres of music which usually does not apeal to the pop music crowd and pop music usually does not apeal to me. I found this article easy to follow because Cohen kept my attention and interest with his clever intertwing of stories and jokes into his writing.

• 11    Malia // May 31, 2007 at 6:49 pm

  There has been this constant buzz about “art”. What is it? Who’s is it? What is the point? What is the value? Unfortunately, the debacle will never end. What is right? What is wrong? I believe, no matter how hard we try, and Art cannot be defined. That is the beauty of art. It is open for interpretation, and creative expression. Who is to judge its value? Who’s to say that if there were 2 paintings hanging on a wall in a room, and one painting received more views that it was more valuable than the other? Does that mean that one’s ideas and interpretations are better than others? Just as art can be created uniquely, it also can be interpreted uniquely. There is no formula, or system to constrict art. Art is powerful, and has the ability to affect each soul in a unique way. Just because you cannot find beauty in it, does not mean that someone else may not. It’s not about the tangible value, it’s the intangible value that matters the most. I believe whoever creates with a purpose, shall be rewarded with respect, regardless of the way in which it affects you. Just as artists need to step outside their own reality and into the eyes of the viewer, it is also the viewer’s responsibility to step into the artist’s reality to understand what their creative soul has drawn upon.

• 12    Gabriel // May 31, 2007 at 6:50 pm

  How do the authors of the assigned readings view the relationship between art and its audience?

  According to Cohen differant levels of art (High, Low) appeal to differant levels of people(High and Low). Cohen uses to descriptive terms to describe the levels of people: Vulger and snobbish, which to me have negitave conotations, but he later adds that this generalization does not fit all audiences. The main idea That I have got from reading this article is that a single piece of art or artistic concept can have a completely differant affect on two differant people. I liked Cohens article because of his colorful storys describing situations, like the one about playing billiards with his friend from Delhi . in this situation he uses the interpretation of a joke as an example of how art can take on multiple interpretations such as being able to move others and some not, and in some situations offending others (Though according to Cohen his friend was no offended).

  He also discusses his ideas on catering art to higher or lower audiences, I think that this is where vulgarity fits in to the equasion as far as apealing to those considered ” Lower” and snobbishness towards those that are “Higher”. For this concept he uses the examples of pop art for the example of “lower”, and classical art as an example of the “Higher”. To answer the question of where I fit in to “Higher and Lower art” I feel that I would fall more into the category of Higher art because I listen to and perform Jazz and Jazz fusion genres of music which usually does not apeal to the pop music crowd and pop music usually does not apeal to me. I found this article easy to follow because Cohen kept my attention and interest with his clever intertwing of stories and jokes into his writing.

  Cotter’s article “Beyond multiculturalism and freedom” mainly discussed the issue of race and art. He felt that minority artists were limited to having a small audience due to demographics, but I disagree because if somthing is good and can attract the publics eye it will definately get out their.

  In my opinion its seems that art has a greater responsibility to its audience than the audience to the art only because of the fact that it takes a great amount of time and effort to get out their and the audiences responsibility is whether to like it or not.

Leave a Comment