Going back to Jay's post.Originally Posted by Jay DeFehr
I do think naive art is not a vacuous category, and what makes it naive is the ignorance of "culture and history" on the part of the artist. I'm always a little scared of "culture", or at least talking about culture. For me, culture should be built in, not built on, and too often, we try to make people cultured by browbeating them into treating as art what we want them to treat as art.
There are, of course, those who have the education to carry a conversation at a high level between culture and history. But in general they can only be entertained when talking amongst themselves. At a cocktail party, two physicists can talk shop in ways perhaps nobody else present can follow, but that does not make those others philistine. The physicists don't mind, because they realize that physics has to be translated into plain English before it can be appreciated by non-physicists. (They may despise how much simplification is required, and they may have opinions about why that is the case, but that's another argument.)
Artists, though, have to consider to whom they are speaking, if they have the objective of actually communicating. And just as physicists are engaged in criticism when they talk shop at a cocktail party, but (usually) considering end applications when actually doing physics, artists may also dip into deep jargon when engaged in criticism or talking shop but still seek to reach out to people of less education with their art.
It seems to me there are three possibilities for target audiences: The artist himself (and I might perhaps include the artist's circle of friends as an extension of himself), the common art buyer, and the art purveyor. The artist may choose to speak only to himself, in the hopes that what resonates with him might also resonate with others. Or, the artist might have something to say to regular people--non-artists. Or, the artist might be specifically trying to impress an art critic, gallery owner, or some such. It is cliche to think that all artists are so mentally self-sufficient that they seek only to please themselves and care nothing for the opinions of others. Many try to sell art in flea markets and other retail situations where the potential buyers are not educated in photographic art criticism, and those who are might think of them as pandering to a low market. But for that group, the art that is good enough may be too sentimental, nostalgic, or obvious for the more educated. That does not make it not art, or even not good art. It just may not be the art that pushes the medium in new directions. Not everyone has to be innovative.
And I go back to my concern that innovation is given too much weight in art criticism. A museum might most desire to preserve and display art that redefines a medium, or that pushes historical boundaries. But are museums really where all artists belong? Doesn't art really belong in the hands of people who love it and display it for their own edification and appreciation? But more often than not, artist wannabes fall into one of two traps. The first is that they do not know art history, and present as innovative something that has already been done. This could be a career-damaging mistake for those physicists mentioned above. In young artists, it mostly just seems embarassing as much as dishonest, especially when they try to define their work as innovative using incomprehensible words rather than by their art making it plain. The second is that they become so innovative that they forget to speak to people. Occasionally--just occasionally--one of these artists rises above this mistake and does something that is unappreciated in his own time but that redefines the medium. And maybe he's driven by a vision so clear that he doesn't care that nobody else appreciates it. But I suspect that most who try to be one of these artists is acting out a role rather than really being that person, and are subject to being crushed by rejection.
I suspect there is much room in the world for simple beauty, even if it is not at all innovative. People still hang reproductions of old art because they like it, and because seeing it on their walls gives them pleasure. As I said before, I hope that's good enough, because that's the best that most of us (me, especially) can hope to achieve.
As to the definition of art, though, I don't think art is defined by critics. I think critics may influence what people consider to be good art. Sunday painters are artists, even if their work is banal, if they intend it to be and if it pleases them as such. And much art that is considered banal by critics might well be loved by those less critical.
For me, art = craft X choices. This discussion seems to me about the choices, but many will still frame it in the context of the craft. The consumer of art doesn't, perhaps, care, at least when they are buying art for art's sake, and not for some other motive.
Rick "whose choices can usually be summed up by one word: 'Neat!'" Denney
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks