Looking at Art:

When you walk into any art gallery, it is almost guaranteed that you will be essentially treated to several pieces which you believe strongly have absolutely no point, but at the same time, told that you have no right to pass judgment on them. In our culture, we have reached the point where no act to limit or critique art is seen as legitimate; unfortunately, this has extended to eradicate the role of the viewer as an active individual participant in art. Should you not like a piece of art, you simply do not or cannot “understand” it. Perhaps you are insufficiently schooled in the subtleties of process; perhaps you are a capitalist pig, a mere slave to the machine of consumerism. In any case, it is my firm belief that the point of art is, on some level, communication, and for this to be successful, interaction between artist and viewer is absolutely necessary. With the current paradigms by which we look at art in our society, however, this is not possible. So what can be changed in the way we look at art to make it meaningful, and why?

Meaning is created by the right to hold opinions and pass judgments.

So how has this aspect been made so one-sided?

The first issue with art today is the conceptions regarding how it should be created. Often, art is based solely on “process”, with the result being almost an accident. Often, the process is opaque to everyone except for the artist; it is often only discovered when pointed out. Thus, in cases like this, art is focused solely on the artist. The audience, if not nonexistent, is often construed as largely unimportant to the work; they are largely excluded, and, at most, expected to be passive receptors to the artist’s internal processes. Because of this somewhat solipsistic perspective that is offered to the artist, even if “interaction” with the art is intended, it is merely an imposition of the artist, and no actual interaction can take place.

Corollary to this is the role played by the viewer, compared to the role that they should be able to play. As an autonomous entity, with their own background and experience, the viewer brings him or herself to the work; the art is interpreted on an individual basis. It is a fundamental right of the viewer to be able to judge and interpret what they see freely, and it is through the exercise of this right that a rapport between viewer and artist is created. Thus, the person looking at a piece of art can choose whether or not they “like” it, and because of the rationale that art is fundamentally subjective (to be dealt with in more detail in succeeding paragraphs), the viewer is justified, just as much as the artist, in holding ideas and passing judgment on the piece.

Although I see this as an ideal, the current perspective on art only allows for this subjectivity on the part of the artist. Art can be defined by any set of criteria, providing the criteria are those of the artist. This reduces the art’s ability to be grounded in a legitimate participatory nature. Just as in the past, there was an objective value system to define what was and wasn’t art, today we have a system that insists we must recognize everything as art, ironically removing the freedom to be subjective initially enshrined by such a system. As things stand, the viewer is expected to be entirely open to the whims of the artist; because anything can be art, the viewer is forced into the position whereby they accept the misconception that everything is art (as opposed to a perfectly acceptable personal definition, based on the values of the viewer). Although the artist definitely does, and should continue to be viewed as having the role of being a value-definer of art, this right should be extended to the viewer.

As a viewer of art, I would also like to forward my vision of a subjective value-system for art. Ideally, I believe art should be founded in one of two main principles. The first of these is pure aesthetic merit. That is, a piece should be seen as either beautiful, or otherwise possessing of sensory appeal or interest. The second principle is that of art presenting an original “point”, or expressing meaning in a novel or interesting fashion, either in terms of a visible process or end result. The reasons for these criteria reach into the very root of what the fundamental purpose of art is. Essentially, this is, as mentioned previously. Regarding the first, aesthetically pleasing objects fulfill a purpose in making us happy, or providing emotional or sensory stimulation, perhaps allowing us to appreciate or understand our environment in a new way. I believe that this is completely acceptable as an artistic end. Additionally, it follows the idea of artist-viewer interaction, in that the artist is expressing their vision, and we are reacting to it, and this is an integral part of the artwork.

Art need not be aesthetically pleasing, however. This is the primary reason for my second principle. It may be the specific intention of the artist to create something we would commonly construe as ugly or unattractive in order to make a particular point or transmit some sort of message. The only problem with this is that it is, quite frankly, overdone and when it is not original, it loses merit, in that it is not giving anything to the viewer: it does not present anything pleasing, interesting, or seriously thought provoking. This, of course, is a completely subjective definition, and one person stating that they do not feel a piece of art has any value does not absolutely delegitimize a piece of art, but instead, strengthens the value of art on the whole.

So what, in the end, am I advocating? I believe that the role of the viewer in art is essential, and that part of their role that has been neglected by the “art establishment” is that of applying their skills of discretion and making judgements. As a result of current perspectives on art, it has grown increasingly irrelevant as a method of communication or interaction. Common artistic media are very versatile, giving nearly endless opportunities for thought and expression, and by bringing the viewer back into art, it would do much to revitalize art, by creating actual meaning that could be appreciated on individuals’ own terms.