Discussion - Is Context Important?

[rexbobcat]

I think intent matters. There's no way of reading an artist's mind to tell if they're BSing or not, but...If I painted two circles and a square on a canvas just for the sake of painting two circles and a square in a gallery, and a bunch of critics show up and say "it clearly shows the struggles of the middle-class during this economic recession", I know that that is just BS, but if I say "oh yeah, that's totally what I was going for" then who's going to question it without looking like an ass?

It's almost like a fluke or a bluff that is almost impossible to call somebody on.

I'd like to believe that intent is a large part of art, but it's impossibly difficult to empirically prove an artist's intent, so....I don't know...

 

[pgriz]

If you read the bafflegab that passes for much literary writing in artist magasines, you find yourself in a strange world of obscure references and inside jokes and a vocabulary of incomprehensible turgity, and this is all supposed to enlighten the readers in the method or style of the artist being fawned over. What it does do is create an intellectual fog which softens the edges of artistic incompetence and hides the hollowness of vision. Bah. Conceptual Art requires the viewer to be in on the joke, to understand the concept, and to apply a serious amount of suspension of judgement. It's not my cuppa tea, and periodic exposures to it have not illuminated my ignorance as much as they left me convinced that it is (relatively) easy to sell almost anything if you have the right angle. Of course, that attitude has earned me the reputation of a trologditian luddite. Pftt. I say the emperor has no clothes.

 

[amolitor]

Here's an example of something that I think counts as conceptual art, and which I thought was a pretty powerful something-or-other:

In our local museum, The Chrysler Museum of Norfolk, VA, we have an exhibit by black artists. Obviously there's a lot of stuff about race, and so on. I like some of it, I don't like some of it. One of the pieces was the carpet from the artist's grandmother's living room (or some other relative, or some other room -- it doesn't matter) literally just ripped out of the apartment and hung on the wall.

It was stained and beat up and old and kind of nasty. Just a hunk of carpet, like any other cheap used-up carpet. As a piece trying to stand on its own, a complete and abject failure - less than nothing. Literally garbage.

As a piece inside a concept, with the narrative of "my grandmother's living room" it's quite powerful and evocative. You look at it, even for a moment, and you instantly feel connected in an abstract way to a long life lived, to a degree of poverty, to history and story. None of it really expressible in words. It didn't work for everyone, my wife absolutely could not get past the "but it's a carpet. nailed to the wall." but it worked pretty well for me.

I guess I have to say that it's art, since it was moving and powerful. But the carpet's not the art, it's the carpet and the narrative and the context, all tied together, and it probably doesn't make sense AT ALL outside of the specific narrative of race in the USA in the 20th and 21st centuries. It's not very durable art, and where the edges of the "piece" are is really a pain in the ass to get a handle on. It's not visually appealing AT ALL, I outright disliked looking at it. The fact that it is moving and powerful raises all kinds of ugly questions (as I suggested above). But, damn it, it moves me, I can't deny it.

 

[Derrel]

Dirty carpet as art? zOMG---I am surrounded by fantastic artwork!!!!!! I feel so fortunate!

 

[pgriz]

Dirty carpet as art? zOMG---I am surrounded by fantastic artwork!!!!!! I feel so fortunate!

My wife would say you need to use your vacuum cleaner more.

But in the example brought to us by Amolitor, the rug is just one element in the narrative, and the narrative provides the context within which we can attach meaning to that element. Without that context, it's just a dirty rug. With that context, it provides a tangible link to a long life lived under hard conditions. To me, that's not "Conceptual" art, but an exhibit with good story-telling.

 

[unpopular]

A typical "amateur" response. My horse may not be modern but it is much more "professional" and more "experienced" by decades than yours.
Seriously your view would not be taken seriously by any of the photographers that I work with or associate with.

OH NO. NOT THAT!!! Not being taken seriously by skieur and his protog buddies!

You're absolutely right, contemporary art is a complete farce, and those guys at MoMA are just imbeciles by comparison to your infinitely shallow wisdom on the topic - they should all just throw away the the photographs by Woodman, Nakadate and Rafert and hang senior portraits instead!!!!

Please, oh please do forgive me skiuer. I want nothing more than to be taken seriously by "the pros"! I'll erase my entire fine art education in exchange! Just don't banish me to being the dreaded "amateur"!!!!!

That is. Unless I sell a print. Then I'll be in the "pro club" ... maybe I'll just continue down that path.

 

[unpopular]

Dirty carpet as art? zOMG---I am surrounded by fantastic artwork!!!!!! I feel so fortunate!

My wife would say you need to use your vacuum cleaner more.

I hear that Jeff Koons has a couple for sale.

 

[amolitor]

A typical "amateur" response. My horse may not be modern but it is much more "professional" and more "experienced" by decades than yours.
Seriously your view would not be taken seriously by any of the photographers that I work with or associate with.

OH NO. NOT THAT!!! Not being taken seriously by skieur and his protog buddies!

To be honest, I could not even work out what skieur's original remark meant. This twitter aesthetic of keepiing remarks under 140 characters is completely beyond me.

 

[unpopular]

But he's a pro!

 

[unpopular]

I think intent matters. There's no way of reading an artist's mind to tell if they're BSing or not, but...If I painted two circles and a square on a canvas just for the sake of painting two circles and a square in a gallery, and a bunch of critics show up and say "it clearly shows the struggles of the middle-class during this economic recession"

I used to really agree with this, but now I am not sure. Does your intent change how the image is interpreted? What right we have to tell others how to experience the world, including the art which we put out there? If a critic says that your painting is about "the struggle of the middle class", you can (and should) say, that is not what I had in mind - but it nonetheless cannot change what the critic had seen when he or she experienced the piece.

We have this sense that art is about the artist, and I think that this is a very selfish position to hold, and self righteous to insist upon. People see art for what it is, sensory input which is interpreted by our memories and experiences.

At the time I did not really appreciate my poor grade, but in one art theory class I took the professor told us that an art critic should relate what he or she sees in a piece of art - and nothing else. If the artist had made a statement, then this too is context that can be taken into account, however, in most cases we are left only with the information contained within the image, so kind of making judgements about what the artist had intended is pretty insignificant; we don't need the artist to appreciate, interpret, experience, or value the art which he or she created.

That said, one critic does not establish true value. If nobody else sees the metaphor in the geometric study which which hypothetical Rex painted, then the critique has no value, and if the critic is only acknowledged due to his or her authority, then that value is as mislead as Skieur's "but i'm a pro" assertion!

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism)
^^ though I realize that new criticism does conflict with my views on context - but that's a whole different post entirely.

 

[pgriz]

Does your intent change how the image is interpreted?

It doesn't, but if the artist says "this is what I was seeing, and this is how I interprete that", then that information may color the viewer's view.

What right we have to tell others how to experience the world, including the art which we put out there?

It's not the "right" but sharing a point of view. Since I don't inhabit other people's minds, seeing something from a different point of view compared to mine is interesting to me. I may not be able to fully "get" what the other person is seeing/feeling/thinking, but it's a worthwhile effort to try. Which is not to say that if someone tells me "this is the only way to look at this", that I would close my mind to other possibilities.

We have this sense that art is about the artist, and I think that this is a very selfish position to hold, and self righteous to insist upon. People see art for what it is, sensory input which is interpreted by our memories and experiences.

Would have to disagree with you... I see art as something tangible that an artist produces which may reveal the artist's vision, influenced strongly by the artist's imagination, technical skill and willingness to share. Without context, you are left only with the artifact, to which you can react in any way that strikes you. With context, it becomes part of a larger body of work which can reveal movement or evolution of ideas and techniques.

As for being branded an "amateur"... well, there are worse insults. I am quite happy to be branded an "amateur", someone who enjoys the activity I engage in, and find worth trying to get better at. After all, the root of the word is "aimer", French for love, with the sense of an amateur being someone who does something for the love of it. In my photo club of about 150 people, the "pros" hold the serious amateurs in very high regard.

 

[unpopular]

As for being branded an "amateur"... well, there are worse insults.

I'm only insulted because of the context it was in. I have no issue by being an "amateur", I do have a problem my views being attacked for no other reason than not being a "professional".

 

[manaheim]

Can I try?

Let's assume for a moment that context assumes the human condition as a given and aliens are not looking at our works.

Some art needs context, some doesn't. A dirty carpet hung on the wall without context would likely be regarded as just some bizarre attempt to cover a hole. Understanding it was placed there to communicate more makes some of us think further and gives it meaning. "Whistlers Mother" requires no context. "The Scream" requires no context.

Some art is enhanced by context, some is not. "The Scream" becomes more interesting as we learn more about Van Gogh and his struggles. My picture of the skyline of Boston is no more interesting if you know about me or the day I took it. (forgive me lumping my work in with Van Gogh- I have no convenient master examples at hand)

Some art "means something", some art doesn't. My English teacher in high school insisted that every single written work had intended meaning, even though I dug up several articles where an author said "oh god no, I didnt hide some meaning in it, I just thought it was a cool story.". Heck all but one of my images are nothing more than "I thought this would look cool.". (again, forgive my impertinence)

Art is necessarily interpreted by all who see it. They come to their own conclusions, regardless of intent, or lack thereof. Intent communicated will naturally affect that interpretation, but the interpretation was still first the viewer's own.

A powerful image will have a powerful effect if it strikes a chord with the viewer, regardless of intent, and regardless of whether the viewer got any message that the artist intended.

An image that has to be explained is weaker than one that does not.

An artist that consistently gets across his intent is a more communicative artist than one who does not. An artist who chooses to agree or disagree with an interpretation of his work is making a huge mistake.

The intent may be there. It may not. The viewer may see it. They may not. It may be accurately communicated. It may not.

In the end the only thing that matters is the impact it has on the viewer.

 

[unpopular]

Some art is enhanced by context, some is not. "The Scream" becomes more interesting as we learn more about Van Gogh and his struggles.

But what were Edvard Munch's demons?

 

[skieur]

A typical "amateur" response. My horse may not be modern but it is much more "professional" and more "experienced" by decades than yours.
Seriously your view would not be taken seriously by any of the photographers that I work with or associate with.

OH NO. NOT THAT!!! Not being taken seriously by skieur and his protog buddies!

To be honest, I could not even work out what skieur's original remark meant. This twitter aesthetic of keepiing remarks under 140 characters is completely beyond me.

Well, keeping it simple, the photographer is "supposed" to use his skills in the technology and the art/composition understanding to communicate "something" (emotion, humour, understanding, point of view, personality, etc.) to the viewer through the photo. If he/she has been successful then NO CONTEXT is necessary. Everyone sees the "meaning" or whatever of the photo. Explanation is only necessary if the photographer has screwed up and failed.

skieur