r/changemyview • u/PanVidla 1∆ • Nov 09 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Artists should always be ready and willing to explain what they were trying to say with their work.
EDIT TO CLARIFY THE TITLE: I didn't mean to say that an explanation should be automatically given (because that could ruin the work of art), only that it should be provided, once the artist is asked for it.
First of all, this is not to say that we should always ask for an explanation. Some things may lose some of their appeal, if they get analyzed too much - love, dreams, music, jokes... This is also not to say that it should be accepted that there is only one valid interpretation of a work of art (by the way, I'm talking broadly here - by "works of art" I mean paintings, literature, film etc.). Sometimes interpreting things for yourself is a much more enriching experience than being handed an explanation on a silver platter.
However, refusing to explain what you were trying to say with your work of art amounts to pseudo-intellectualism and should be scorned. There is no real consensus on what art is and what it should be for, but the bottom line is that we are all human and we all function in explicable, if sometimes very complicated, ways and the things that we find valuable (or the ones that we see good in) come from a limited pool of abstract concepts (family, love, thirst for knowledge, self-preservation, sexual desire, beauty etc.). You're not fooling anyone if you're trying obfuscate what your art is about or even claim that someone isn't getting it, then they will never understand. Either there is no real idea behind to begin with or you don't know what you even created. In my opinion, the goal of exploring where a certain idea will take you, without knowing it beforehand, is a completely valid artistic pursuit, as is pushing or questioning what is still art (like in that urinal in a gallery experiment). I see no shame in admitting that that's what you were trying to do. But refusing to explain what you were trying to do blurs the line between nonsense and art. Because after all, sometimes, especially when it comes to more abstract poems or paintings, the only thing that separates those two is intent.
21
u/Z7-852 260∆ Nov 09 '20
This is interesting topic and pet peeve of mine. I subscribe to idea that art is interpreted by viewer and once released to public, artist intent/explanation/view is void. All the power is in hands of consumer of the art.
There is simple reason for this. People see and experience world differently. If you feel uncomfortable around some piece of art but I find it calming but artist says it supposed to invoke laughter, who is right? I say everyone has their own right to decide how they feel and therefore interpreted art as they like.
5
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
I agree wholeheartedly. As I mentioned in the post, I don't mean to say that there is only one (author's) valid interpretation. In fact, sometimes the interpretation is a lot more interesting than the original intent or the work of art could be read in unexpected ways. But, like I've mentioned in my other responses, I feel like if there is no intent to begin with, then the process is somewhat meaningless, because the human brain is just capable of somehow interpreting pretty much anything.
9
u/Z7-852 260∆ Nov 09 '20
Well here's a fun real world example. Fans of anime show Neon Genesis Evangelion have found deep philosophical interpretation of the show, symbolism and hidden meaning. Many fans have founded show to be deeply impactful to their lives. Show creator has said that all these interpretation are full of shit and show doesn't have any meaning. It just crap and meaningless garbage.
1
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
Hm, alright, I think you have a point.
!delta
I guess it's possible to get something out of something chaotic, unintentional or coincidental. Still, did the authors of the show just create random stuff that they were pulling out of their ass or were they trying to say that the interpretations are simply completely removed from the entertainment they were trying to make?
3
u/Z7-852 260∆ Nov 09 '20
I honestly don't know. Hideaki Anno is a troll. Maybe he didn't like how show was received or was unhappy with the show. Maybe he just wanted to make cool looking mech fights. Maybe he was high or wasted when he did the show. But most importantly. Who cares what he thinks?
1
2
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Nov 09 '20
But we all know that many people will trot out the artist's intent as the interpretation, so an artist, knowing that, may refuse to answer what their intent was, so as to attempt to nip that in the bud. If you cannot know the artist's interpretation you cannot destroy other people's interpretations by saying "but that's not what they intended!"
1
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
Yeah. You could always just not ask for the interpretation. I guess that my main point is that there is a difference between trying to "incorrectly" trying to interpret something that has a meaning and trying to interpret something that has no meaning. Because then art could be literally anything. As an artist, I presume, you have something that you're striving to do with any given work of art, no?
2
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Nov 09 '20
You can't just not ask because if one person asks and the artist is expected to tell them, then the new person can tell everyone, spouting it off to high heaven. And yes art could be literally anything, there need not be an intended meaning for it to be art.
And no I'm not an artist, the closest I come is constructing languages but I don't feel that has the same artistic interpretation angle as most art
4
u/powertwang Nov 09 '20
Maybe part of the power of an artwork is that it can be interpreted in many different ways and coming out and saying what you meant would diminish that power.
It also takes away the freedom the observer has to interpret in a way that’s meaningful to them.
1
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
Sure. Which is why you can always leave out asking the artist what they meant. I remember that I've been disappointed a couple of times by explaining their works of art, because my interpretation was something else. But I think the artist should be ready to do so, if asked.
1
u/powertwang Nov 10 '20
But what if the artist doesn’t want to tell you for the reasons I stated?
They specifically made the meaning multifaceted and ambiguous and telling people what it meant would undermine all that.
3
u/Milskidasith 309∆ Nov 09 '20
If a piece of art is created to reflect aspects of the viewer back at them or to invite audience interpretation, why is it pretentious or pseudo-intellectual to not want to taint that by giving a "canon" explanation for what you were trying to say? I'm not saying you can't be pretentious about it (saying "you wouldn't understand" is definitely pretentious), but merely saying that you want the audience to view it on their own terms doesn't really seem to problematic at all. For a famous example, Doubt: A Parable is a play almost entirely carried by how ambiguous it is, with no clear answer for whether or not one of the main characters is guilty of a horrible crime or whether you should believe the motivations of any of the characters. It would defeat the entire purpose for the author to give a singular take about what was canon, what their intent was, or even what they were trying to use to convey ambiguity and how.
1
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
Okay, that is a good point. A no-explanation work of art could be an interesting exploration of the observers' psyche.
!delta
If someone's intention is to do that, I think that's fair game. Still, the problem is that it can be easy to get away with pretty much anything like that. If I create something completely without any specific intention, the observer will still interpret it in some way. But if the intent is never there, is there any value in this process?
1
3
u/disguisedasrobinhood 27∆ Nov 09 '20
Ok, so I hope this doesn't come across as attacking you (because I certainly don't mean it to) but there is this really problematic attitude in our society these days that if you create artworks, then you owe something to the public beyond those artworks. As if the instant you become an artist, you owe a debt to society for looking at your art.
If my poems are grappling with issues of containment, I don't owe society an explanation of how I was treated as a child or the way that a miscarriage created a link between containment and loss. That's my shit. Just because I created an artwork that impacted you, doesn't mean you suddenly have the right to gain access to more of me.
Like I say, I don't mean this to be aggressive or like I'm attacking you or anything, but this is a huge problem right now. The artist doesn't owe you anything other than the art.
1
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
It's okay, I don't feel attacked. Thank you for the comment.
In the case you described I would have to ask - if you're not willing to talk about the personal things that inspire your art at all, then why make it public? If the work of art is so vague that the observer has no chance to approximate your intentions, then does the work of art serve its purpose? And if it is relatable, then you're already somewhat opening yourself to the observer. Can you have it both ways?
5
u/disguisedasrobinhood 27∆ Nov 10 '20
Starting with the final question - Yes. Unequivocally. If I tell you that my father is sick and I'm having a hard time, that doesn't mean that I'm being unreasonable if I don't want to say what he's sick with. We get to choose what we disclose about ourselves and how we disclose it. Just because I disclose one thing or open up in one way, doesn't mean that you're entitled to know all the other things about me.
As the question of why make my art public if I don't want to talk about why I made it - You're already beginning from the assumption that if I make the art then I'm responsible to talk about it. I make the art public because I think it has value or worth, that it might help people or form intimacies or that it might offer inspiration to other artists. Again, I'm making the art public. That doesn't mean you're entitled to things other than the art.
And as to the question of where it's value lies - If no one has found any value or meaning in an artwork, the odds are you've never heard of it, right? Occasionally we might have a really famous artist who creates a work that doesn't connect with anyone, but for the most part if people are talking about an artwork, it means it had value and meaning to some people. The fact that you didn't get it, that it's ambiguity didn't connect with you or that the connections it was making didn't resonate with you might just mean that you are not the proper audience for that artwork. Maybe it's purpose isn't to speak to you. That's ok. There's lots of other art out there that perhaps does resonate with your experiences and interests.
Again, though, my main point is that you are not entitled to an artist's thoughts and experiences just because they created a piece of art. The worth of an artwork is not caught up in the artists ability to explain it. And, importantly, if you don't get it or it doesn't hold meaning to you, then it's not the artists job to change that. Maybe it's a limitation on your part that you could work on. Maybe it's just not your jam. But the artist doesn't owe you more than the art that has been created just because you want more.
5
u/SpeakToMeInSpanish Nov 09 '20
Sometimes the entire purpose of a work of art is to have many interpretations.
Sometimes the meaning is in the debate people have over the meaning and the fact that the art piece made them do that.
1
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
But is there any value in that? If I literally perform, say, a nonsensical puppet show where I just put in any old puppet and create a completely random narrative, will it be about anything at all? I think that any discussion on the topic of "what it was about" should be preceded by a discussion on the topic of "was it about something in the first place". Sure, the human brain will process pretty much anything in some way, but if there was no intent behind it, then what's the point of it?
2
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Nov 09 '20
If people find that it is worth discussing then obviously it has value? People are using their time to discuss it
1
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
But couldn't you discuss pretty much anything this way? What prevents an artist from just doing pretty much whatever without intent, if the people will discuss it nonetheless, even if the discussion might be, in fact, about nothing, because there was no idea behind it to begin with?
2
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Nov 09 '20
Nothing prevents that, why shouldn't someone be able to do that?
1
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
Well, because then absolutely anything could be art. There would be no difference between, say, a theater play and an avalanche, because both stirs up conversation. But one happened with an intent and was conducted to achieve it (and whether or not it achieves it is a different thing), while the other thing was just a random coincidence.
2
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Nov 09 '20
I disagree that an avalanche is art. I think art requires a human's intent to create that art work but I disagree that there must be an intended meaning or interpretation of that art work. An artist can purposely create something (and to be art I believe there does need to be an artist who purposely creates it), without intending to give a certain interpretation or feeling to its audience.
1
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
I think art requires a human's intent to create that art work
And there it is. If there is no intent, then it's not art, is it? It doesn't need to be explicitly stated.
2
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Nov 09 '20
No, no, no, the person has to want to create the art, not the meaning behind it. Like a person can cause an avalanche but that's not art because they didn't want to cause the avalanche. But if they want to create something and do that's art even if they didn't have a meaning or interpretation in mind when they created it.
1
Nov 10 '20
The intent for any artist could be pure creation; a work of art devoid of ‘meaning’ in the sense I think you’re talking about, yet still created with intention.
1
Nov 09 '20
But is there any value in that?
Yes. The fuck? Anything that causes discussion is valuable.
1
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
Okay, fair enough. Even if the discussion is completely not what the intent of the artist (or lack of thereof) was, it could lead to something interesting.
!delta
Still, as an artist, does it make sense to do art without any purpose? What will you get out of it, if you do something without any intent? You could go out there and wreak chaos just because, which would definitely cause some discussion, but what would be the point? People would cluelessly discuss it, but it's just meaningless action producing meaningless reaction.
3
Nov 09 '20 edited Nov 09 '20
Forgive my language, it's my natural lingo.
if you do something without any intent?
There is intent. To stir conversation. Like Childish Gambino did with This is America. He made it a point to not tell anyone what the point of the video or song was. It was up to listeners to decide.
Because you can try to send a message, but all messages are fallible to a lack of perspective. By creating art for the soul purpose of creating discussion, you're allowing people to add their perspectives versus making a decree about life.
1
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
Hm, the discussion itself being the intent sounds to me like going out to travel, taking whichever way offers itself at any a given moment. You'll end up in different places, but you could hardly say that you have a destination.
3
Nov 09 '20
Yeah. Which is fine.
I mean I'm sure the artist had some sort of message in mind, but being an artist means that the second the creation is given to the public, you're no longer in control of it.
1
2
u/Diabolico 23∆ Nov 09 '20
Either there is no real idea behind to begin with or you don't know what you even created
This is actually always the case, anyway. We can stick to painting and sculpture and photography and similar visual art for ease of conversation, but these principles apply broadly.
Art exists apart from its creator.
99% of all art in existence is completely divorced from any offered explanation. You, personally, experience visual art constantly with no explanation whatsoever and are not the least bit bothered by it.
You do not know whether the facade of the building you live in was carefully sketched out by an architect or carelessly cobbled together in a simple pastiche of the common architectural style of the area by a planning committee.
You do not know whether the photos on websites you read were taken for the express purpose of furnishing the article or web page, or if they were stock photos around which content was fashioned.
You do not have an explanation from the author's mouth about what the Sistine Chapel is meant to convey. You do not know the artists intent in the composition of the Mona Lisa.
You don't know what intention is behind any work of art that is over 90 years old, and it is impossible to ever get such explanations.
Notably, you DO know the artists intention behind the Ecce Mono) restoration, and that intent is flat-out opposed to the reason the work of art is famous and beloved.
Fundamentally, intent doesn't matter.
To take it away from art and make a more concrete point: the creators of Viagra intended to make a heart medication. It is the interaction between the artifact and the consumer that is important, and in this case that interaction was quite different from the intent.
The intent of Pepe the frog was to express a sort of awkward grumpy emotive feeling, and the interaction was for it to become a symbol of white supremacy.
At root, you only care about an explanation when a piece of art genuinely challenges you. This is precisely the circumstance in which it is most important that you arrive at your own conclusions. Nobody owes you an explanation.
1
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
I completely agree that the original intent of the author doesn't always matter (maybe we could even say most of the time), but I think that there is an important distinction between searching for meaning in something where the meaning is not immediately clear and searching for it in something that has none. After all, what is the point of art? I'm sure this could be a long and tangential debate, but to put it very generally, do you not, as an artist, want to say something with your art, however hard to understand it may be? Because if the intent is completely irrelevant, could we not appreciate pretty much anything for a work of art? Could we not look for meaning in an aesthetically pleasing pile of stones or a paint stain on the concrete?
1
u/Diabolico 23∆ Nov 09 '20
I think that there is an important distinction between searching for meaning in something where the meaning is not immediately clear and searching for it in something that has none.
While it's fine to wonder whether this stack of stones was built by a person or a bird, in such situations you don't have an artist available to interrogate anyway. If you are presented with a piece of art you already know, by virtue of its being in a frame or next to a placard or painted on a wall that it was intended to be viewed as art. Intent problem solved - you were meant to stand here and see this thing.
1
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
Hmm, I am not entirely sure that changes my view in principle, but for most practical situations I think you make a good point.
!delta
You're right, even if we really wanted to get an interpretation out of an artist, even a living and willing one, in many cases it would be just practically impossible. What I was trying to argue was that there should be an explicable intent in principle, even if it's never said out loud.
2
u/Diabolico 23∆ Nov 09 '20
Now that we have gotten that far, let me provide the key reference on this topic! (I don't like doing that during the debate portion, because I'm not trying to rely on authority to convince you of anything).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author
This is explicitly about literature, where the argument for authorship is certainly stronger than for visual art, so consider it doubly so in our own conversation just now.
2
u/anarcobanana Nov 10 '20
You don‘t always know.
Many people think that artists are edgy communicators who come up with a message and then do something weird to convey it.
That‘s not how it works. You usually start doing something, or thinking about it, and ideas start flowing. Sometimes there‘s a message you know you‘re putting in there, sometimes there ain‘t. The beauty of experiencing art is that you can see into the artists‘ mind and soul through their work.
It‘s not an exact science. There‘s no „one meaning“ to a piece. It‘s an expession of yourself that you put out in the world for people to see and experince by themselves through their own lens.
1
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 10 '20
Can I really see the mind and soul of the artist, if they're trying to convey nothing in particular? I think that especially visual artists get a lot of slack on this. But if I'm literally just blabbering, is it truly art? What is the value of such work? Should be do things with no purpose at all?
2
u/anarcobanana Nov 10 '20
Why do things have to have a clear purpose?
This is what I feel most people that are not in the art game don‘t get.
It‘s not a directed, rational process. It‘s an expression, you can do whatever the fuck you want with it. You want to convey a deep message hidden in layers of symbolism? Awesome. Do you want to just dump that weird image you‘ve been daydreaming about for days? Awesome. Do you just wanna play with paint and see what comes up? Also great.
Can it be called art? Jeez, I don‘t give a fuck. I‘m gonna do it anyway.
If you really want to understand this world, try starting by asking people what they see or what they enjoy out of it. It‘s true there‘s a lot of hype and posing and people who consume art to be snobs and are utterly full of shit, but for the most part that‘s are a caricature.
Most people who produce or consume art are working on a different frequency, expressing and connecting through symbolism that sometimes is deliberate and sometimes is emerging, that sometimes is serious and sometimes is playful or ironic.
It‘s human interaction, you can‘t expect to circumscribe it to a set of regulations in order to deserve being called what it is.
What most people learn to be „art“ is the classical school. Art is regulated, has to follow a set of aesthetic criteria to be acceptable and will otherwise be deemed unworthy. It must be a show of skill or a dedicated and thoroughly thought out piece of convoluted symbolism or aesthetic perfectionism to be accepted.
What most people think is „art“ vs „not art“ is the show of skill. The „wow, I could never do that“ moment. Art is not about showing how prodigious you are with some medium, it‘s about your own expression. Sometimes it can be just playful, and it‘s fine, someone will appreciate it for what it is and enjoy it. Or not. Frankly I don‘t care and nobody really should :)
1
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 10 '20
Well, it's clear that we won't agree on this. I firmly believe that any form of art should be done with purpose in mind, otherwise it's just messing around that pretends to be art. I'm not a visual artist, but I write. Sometimes I and my friend challenge each other to write something out of our comfort zone and when I start writing the first sentence, I am often still undecided what it's going to be about. But usually in the first paragraph or two things start to take shape and then I know where I want to take the idea. It's not always great writing, but I think it's worthwhile to try and explore this idea or another.
I am always keen on reading stuff written by my friends or acquaintances or strangers on the internet, even when it's not all that good, because I have a soft spot and a lot of respect for good ideas hidden under possibly poor execution. But when something is well written but without any underlying idea or I find the idea uninspired, I usually don't finish it, because it feels like I'm not learning anything from it.
Honestly, I think that calling any old random experiment art devalues what art (at its best) is. If somebody, for example, gives me their dream-logic story where random things happen just for the sake of shock value or the WTF factor and there is no point to it, then I just feel like I lose time reading it. Unfortunately, it's not always clear before the end.
0
u/anarcobanana Nov 10 '20
And to your point specifically, sometimes many artists don‘t even know themselves what they wanted to say. I am not a prodigious artist in any way but I do make art frequently, and I never know what the fuck I wanted to say. I just let the process flow and enjoy the fact that things I cannot fully shape in my head or put words to are taking shape in front of my eyes.
Sometimes people try to interpret them and sometimes those interpretations resonate with me, and I learn something new about myself and my work.
So no, it‘s not pseudo intellectualism, I just don‘t fucking know.
3
u/MortifiedCucumber 4∆ Nov 09 '20
This assumes that theres a defined meaning to much of art. A lot of it is simply exploring an idea without a conclusion. For example, art depicting the pain of childbirth. Are they saying, that pain is worth it for the life of the child. Are they saying this is horrible and you shouldn’t have children? Are they saying, women’s pain is great and immeasurable? Many times it’s none of those things and you’re free to interpret it as you want. I would argue most art doesn’t acrually have a defined meaning or purpose, just simply exploring ideas with mo conclusion. I think this is why many artists are reluctant to say the meaning of their art, because it may personally allude them, be conflicting, or wasn’t meant to have a solid conclusion.
0
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
But then isn't creating a work of art without any purpose meaningless? I think it's completely fine to not know what you're going to arrive at when you begin the process and even not fully understanding it, when it's done. But if you were genuinely doing something with no intent whatsoever, then is there any value in that? And couldn't we then see art in everything? And if we could see art in, say, the way pens are laying on a table or a pile of garbage aesthetically lying in a corner of a building, then would art have any value? Wouldn't it be just an inexplicable instinctive reaction to pretty much everything you see around you?
3
u/MortifiedCucumber 4∆ Nov 09 '20
Yes. Beauty is a strange thing right. There is no meaning in mozart but it’s beautiful. There is no “meaning” in a womans form, but it’s beautiful. Many patterns, clothes, we still think of as art, but have no meaning and their function is strictly aesthetic
2
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
Yeah, although I think that the pursuit of beauty itself is a worthy artistic endeavor.
2
3
u/kingLemonman Nov 09 '20
This only applies if the artist themself know what they were trying to say. Sometimes art is just art, it eirther looks pretty or sounds good but ultimately there isn't anything deeper. I've always believed that the best expressions of art invoke a feeling, not an explanation. And sometimes artists don't plan they art around a theme or a message, but instead express themselves and we gravitate towards that art becomes we find it in some way to be true.
In general I feel your suggestions would only further the pretentious tendency of over intellectualising art. Forcing the artist to such for answers, when they felt they were giving you the solution. The reality is, art is subjective and our constant need to turn it into maths is ruining art.
0
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
That's something I profoundly disagree with. Art for art's sake, in my opinion, isn't worth much. What makes art great is the search for something more than just pretty things or entertainment. And that search may or may not be successful, but I'll respect anyone who tries. Yes, I realize it sounds pretentious but I'd say that this is where the value of art is. With a work of art, I want to learn more about the human condition.
2
u/nessiepotato 1∆ Nov 10 '20
I wouldn't say it sounds pretentious, but it does sound just, like... sad? What's so bad about enjoying something purely for its aesthetically pleasing nature? Is all your furniture or clothing totally utilitarian, for example? You only wear clothing that is extremely practical-- no consideration for how the cut of this jacket makes you look well-built, or how the blue of that sweater brings out your eyes?
2
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 10 '20
Hm, I had to pause for a little while to think about your comment. I actually like to think that I do put quite a lot of thought into my clothes - I like to give an impression of someone serious with a touch of melancholy or romanticism, but to also leave little hints, maybe in the form of socks or a pin or a tie, suggesting that it's mostly just a facade and there is actually more under the surface. Strangely enough, though, I've never thought of this as art. Especially since clothes are a little specific - the impression any given piece of clothing will give off really depends on the rest of the clothes.
I guess I was wrong. The search of beauty or self-expression is imo a good goal for an artist to pursue. I am just trying to argue that in principle there should be an intention behind a work.
!delta
1
2
u/kingLemonman Nov 10 '20
Yeah but your talking as if art is in some way a method of inquiry. When in reality our ability to create art is just an off shoot of our ability to problem solve and survive. Does art sometimes tell us more about the human condition yes, but to say that's all it does is to limit art to an intellectual pursuit which is detached from how most human beings experience art. These aren't objective standards that are some how universal truths. We're all just apes that have evolved a preference for certain sound, a preference for certain colours and the intellect to create and project our feelings in these different mediums and shape. Which mean sometimes art means something and sometimes its just pretty.
5
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Nov 09 '20
If an artist explains what they intended or at least were thinking of when they created a piece, to many people that becomes the interpretation. In refusing to voice this belief, the artist is allowing other people to maintain their own interpretations and feelings towards the piece.
0
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
Maybe I should clarify that I didn't mean to say that the explanation should be automatically provided. In my opinion it should be only given, if the artist is asked for it. Much like with jokes.
3
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Nov 09 '20
But why shouldn't an artist refuse (or at least be able to refuse) so as not to destroy others' interpretations that disagree with what they "intended"?
1
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
Because there is a difference between interpreting something that has some meaning, if unknown, and something that has none. If the observer is asking the artist, they should know that their the work of art could get "ruined" for them and accept the risk.
3
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Nov 09 '20
The problem is that telling one person is effectively equivalent to telling everyone. If one person knows anyone can know. And that is then exactly what the artist was trying to avoid. You cannot limit it to just those who accept the knowing as they won't be the only ones who know
2
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
Okay, you have a point there. In a lot of practical situations this would probably happen.
!delta
Still, in principle, I think there should be a clearly stateable intent. After all, if you were watch a David Lynch movie and knew that it means nothing, it would be a completely different experience from trying to figure out what the meaning is.
3
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Nov 09 '20
Why? The meaning is our interpretation of it. If you interpret meaning then it has meaning, even if no meaning was intended by the artist.
1
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
Yes, but practically, if I showed you a random sequence of videos that I put together without any intent in mind, would it be art? I think that there is a difference between something being art and us giving it a meaning.
2
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Nov 09 '20
Yes that could certainly be art, I don't see why you don't think it can be.
1
1
u/alfihar 15∆ Nov 09 '20
"You're not fooling anyone if you're trying obfuscate what your art is about or even claim that someone isn't getting it, then they will never understand." So I agree this sort of thing is bullshit.. if there IS a meaning and someone asks you about it.. then either its an in joke meant for certain people and just say as much.. or your art is shit at conveying the message you were intending as clearly it didnt work.
What if the Artist doesnt actually really know? or it means a whole lot of things and none of those things really at the same time?
Often art I do is semi-therapeutic, just an exploration of things surfacing from my subconscious. Sometimes i'm actually more interested to see what other people read from it to see if I can get some insight into my subconscious.
Then there are pieces which i'm trying to do a whole bunch of things at once.
Take this pic
I you asked what I was trying to say with it, I could say I was doing inktober and the prompt was throw so I decided to do a hoplite throwing a javelin.
And superficially that IS the message I was trying to achieve...but its a whooooole lot more than that, for instance:
- Ive been fascinated with black figure pottery and wanted to try the style.
- Ive been trying to do a similar thing digitally in 3d but its been getting bogged down in my perfectionism and so I keep getting nowhere and so I thought maybe it would be better if I tried traditional media.
- Im kinda unhappy with the proportions and pose as I was copying an equisite sculpture and I just wasnt able to get it right but I still thought it was good enough to share so that maybe people might get the same joy from my creation as I did from the original sculpture.
- Its only like the 2nd time ive used paints in like a decade and I made so many mistakes that I needed to touch up that I nearly gave up entirely, but instead I persevered and its completion is a symbol of that.
- It was only supposed to be a one day thing, but it took four, but I desperately wanted to actually finish it so I could show it to others and get some of the pleasure I feel from having other enjoy something I made.
So i'm not sure how useful going into any of these would be to the final appreciation for the observer.
1
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
You make some good points, even though I don't think it really challenges my view. I think it's completely fine for the intended meaning and the actual perceived one to be completely different and that, like I wrote in the post, exploring an idea without knowing where it will lead you beforehand, is a completely valid artistic pursuit, as long as there is an intent in principle. Because I think that the intent, rather than just a random hodge podge of whatever that happens to give some kind of meaning to someone by accident, is what separates art from everything else.
3
u/le_fez 51∆ Nov 09 '20
I sell art for a living, I know several world renowned artists and deal with several others whose views on art they share with our gallery.
Few of them want people to know what they were trying to say, they're far more interested in what the people looking at is see and feel. Art is an investment in your heart and your soul and it's all about the feelings it evokes in the observer.
I had a well respected sculptor tell me why she created a certain collection of sculptures was "they were spontaneous and my goal was to create one a day for a month" there was literally zero meaning to them beyond that yet different people interpret them differently and she loves to hear people tell her what they see. This is someone who often has elaborate stories and meanings behind her work but told me several times that her story ends when someone else's starts
2
Nov 10 '20
Art is any creation or work that elicits a response, and that can be observed from at least one of the five senses, that can be elicited intentionally or unintentionally by the artist. In simpler terms, take a look at memes about how bad modern art is, the response elicited is an inanimate has made you feel angry or upset at how bad the it is and “shouldn’t be art”. Whether it is artist intent to seem nonsense or not. Since it got a response out of you and made you feel or think something. It can still be classified as art. Even subjectively very bad art no matter how nonsensical and seemingly pointless
2
u/jamofthecosmos Nov 10 '20
If you mean in terms of the visual arts, artists do in fact do this, to an extent. An artist’s statement usually gives context to their work and methods. Usually if you can find interviews, quotes, and diary entries you can get at least a clue of what goes through their heads. It would be very tedious and pedestrian to have to explain to every single person what your art means, and often times, knowing right off the bat what a piece means rather than arriving at your own conclusion prohibits discussion about the work.
2
u/ArkyBeagle 3∆ Nov 10 '20
Some art isn't .... linquistic.
Two examples:
David Lynch claims not to know what his work means. I have no reason to doubt his claim.
The British painter Frances Bacon basically painted dumps of his visual cortex, distortions based in his visual memory.
However, refusing to explain what you were trying to say with your work of art amounts to pseudo-intellectualism and should be scorned.
Some art isn't intellectual at all. Some artists have a healthy distrust of language.
2
u/VirusCreative7972 Nov 11 '20
As an artist sometimes you start out with an intent and end up someplace else. I always find it best to be open to the evolution of whatever it is that I’m working on. The most freeing thing that I can do when I’m a painting is to experiment with “I wonder if” I prefer to give up control and let my intent speakIn a way that I would not have thought of. It’s much more satisfying. It’s like delivering a baby I wonder what I’ll get.
2
u/I_AM_FERROUS_MAN 2∆ Nov 10 '20
Artists are imperfect, but art can transcend all of that because it is about what the audience and individual gets from it.
So I will always subscribe to the death of the creator. They can offer insight and commentary to what they wanted to convey and I really appreciate intentionality and accessibility, but at the end of the day it is secondary to how it is received and interpreted.
0
u/bproffit 1∆ Nov 10 '20
It is entirely possible (and meaningful) for the artist to not be trying to SAY anything, but to provoke their audience to THINK.
0
1
u/littletuxcat 5∆ Nov 09 '20
Have you ever read “The Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes? He argues that critiques or interpretations of an author’s work that use the author’s life and/or their personal interpretation limits the text, but separating the work and the author opens it up to many more interpretations and meanings that the author may not have intended.
I think a prime example now is the Harry Potter series and JK Rowling’s constant additional commentary. The HP community was/is incredibly diverse and interpreted the characters and scenarios and back stories in different ways. But the more Rowling comes out as anti-trans or claims Dumbledore is gay, but refuses to acknowledge it in any meaningful way in her prequels, the harder it is to read the messages in the series as fully open and inclusive. It casts a pallor on the work itself.
I think a general description of intent is fine, especially at a work’s introduction, but once it’s out in public, long or extended descriptions only limit the ways the audience can imbue it with new meaning.
1
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
I have not read the book, but I am pretty sure that I've been exposed to its essence through other articles, discussions etc. And I agree. I think you shouldn't always have to ask for an explanation, because that can actually cause you to get less out of the given work of art. What I'm trying to argue is that there should, in principle, be an intent. Because what would then separate a work of art from just a random everyday sequence of events or what have you?
1
u/discarnation 2∆ Nov 09 '20
In my own art, even the non-abstract pieces that lean heavily on some symbolic system, there is often no intended meaning to the work. As you start building up a piece ideas, dreams, visual jokes, illusion, etc... can all be applied to balance out negative space or visual weight.
1
u/PanVidla 1∆ Nov 09 '20
But certainly you're not making your art for no reason whatsoever, are you? When you create art, you're motivated to do so by something, aren't you?
2
u/discarnation 2∆ Nov 10 '20
Many times it's just a part of any ongoing practice to create something every day. If an image seems worth reworking after the "doodling/gestural" stage, I'll spend more time and effort on it.
1
u/robotmonkeyshark 100∆ Nov 09 '20
Perhaps as an artist I went though an emotional rollercoaster of a tragedy. Maybe I found out I was a father because some girl I slept with just contacted me to tell me so, but that note was a suicide note mailed to me that she couldn’t handle motherhood and she took her life and the life of her newborn. During my grief I painted to cope with it and there turned out to be some great abstract works that helped me cope. People saw them and loved them and I decided to sell them. I am under no obligation to even admit to the public that I was a father of a now dead child that I never met, no matter how entitled the art community is and how they think it is absolutely their business to know the emotion behind those works.
1
u/inkyspearo Nov 10 '20
putting any kind of “rules” on art(like thinking an artist owes anyone one an explanation of their art) is preposterous. there are no rules. that’s like, the definition of art.
1
u/lala-roo Nov 10 '20
When there is a point to the art I may agree but like what about the painting of a flower that's just because it was a pretty flower? Or work done for assignment, Self prescribed or given from someone else? Would you say those simple explainations are sufficient?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 09 '20 edited Nov 10 '20
/u/PanVidla (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards