In the 20th century, when the argument "an idea alone can be art" took precedence over the notion that "art is an object to look at or behold," it triggered not just a transformation in art itself but also a significant shift in the identity and practices of artists. While it may seem unconventional to be judgmental in art, these transformations compelled artists to make certain judgments. They found themselves grappling with the purpose of art on one hand and, on the other, questioning their own identities amidst the intersection of art and commerce. Interestingly, historical evidence suggests that such confusions have been intrinsic to the realm of art throughout its history.
Since the 1970s, when capital began to play a more significant role in the art market, both artists and investors have subjected art to market forces to such an extent that, in popular perception, artistic merit has become synonymous with price tags. Art, its idioms, and its scales underwent profound changes. With higher stakes in the art market, the choices and positions artists adopted began to carry more consequences in society than ever before. However, despite this newfound importance, visual art, unfortunately, still struggles to be seen as highly relevant to society.
Herbert Read's statement, as quoted by George Lechner in his essay "Art - East and West," emphasizes the disconnect between art and the common person. Read argues that the average individual in modern civilization is aesthetically numb and unaffected by art; they may cultivate art as a cultural badge to gain access to exclusive social circles, but they remain unchanged by their artistic experiences. This skepticism is coupled with the observation that it might take a very long time for a vital connection to be reestablished between art and society. The modern work of art, being a symbol, is only intelligible to those initiated in its meanings. The contradiction between the aristocratic function of art and the democratic structure of modern society seems irreconcilable.
When one argues that "an idea itself can be a form of art," and since every idea inherently embodies change (as every idea is an argument for or against something), it aligns with a society trained to seek empirical proof for every idea. Empirical proof for an idea takes time, leading to its acceptance. Contemporary art, which leans heavily on ideas, follows a similar trajectory. Change in society, like change in art, requires time for acceptance. The alienation of art from society, as expressed by Paul Klee's "Uns tragt kein Volk" (the people are not with us), is a reality, at least until the idea of art is empirically proved and accepted. Unlike in the scientific field, artistic ideas can never be empirically proved to absolute satisfaction, as Kandinski notes in his essay "The Spiritual in Art," stating that "Every period of culture produces its own art, which can never be repeated."
The paradoxical existence of ideas in art, where they do not lead to a single outcome, poses a vexing question for artists regarding their practice. In a knowledge-based society where knowledge equates to power, identity, and social security, ideas—products of knowledge—are subjected to various societal pressures, both seen and unseen. In a constantly evolving society, things remain far from frozen, and art is no exception. Whether the effects we create become heritage or hindrance depends on the positions we take in life. History of human civilization tells us this story repeatedly.
Artists, unlike many others in life, have traditionally enjoyed the liberty to deliberate on positions without fearing the outcome. When artists declared, "I prefer - Impressionism," "I interpret - Post-Impressionism," "I study then present - Cubism," "I subject - Constructivism," "I am objective - Deconstructivism," "I reject - Dada," "I understand - Modernism, Abstract," "I am the God - Abstract Expressionism," "I don't create, I extract - Minimalism," "I define - Conceptual art," "I don't define, I explore - Postmodernism," and "I expose - Contemporary art," these were more than acts of undemocratic nature in art. A careful study of these positions reveals that artists did not retain these positions for themselves alone but also delivered them to their art and its observers as forms of liberty. These were acts of human adventure pushing boundaries, for without them, human civilization could not progress.
1. Harrison Charls- Art and Language-:Basil Blackwel: 1991, P:1 pg:33
2. Harrison Charls- Art and Language-:Basil Blackwel: 1991, P:1 pg:33
3. Lechner Georg -Philosophy of modern art: Herbert Read, quote from Art –east and west: p5:p9 Art today : Marg Publication
4. Lechner Georg -Philosophy of modern art: Herbert Read, quote from Art –east and west: p12:p10 Art today : Marg Publication
No comments:
Post a Comment