de Goncourt, art
I went back to the State Art Gallery today. I had to see this painting again, ‘The American Dream’ by Brett Whiteley. There was something written on it which was driving me mad so I absolutely had to find out who said it. It was a quote, you see. Now that I’ve seen it again, this is what I think it says:
If we give art a moral aim it ceases to be art because it is no longer useless… Art is always unintelligible to the crowd because it [the crowd] is not disinterested + knows only purpose.
E+J de Goncourt
‘The American Dream’ is a mural-type painting twenty metres long and covered in pictures of Bob Dylan, stuffed birds and other junk. It even has a big red flashing light, but it’s still pretty crap. It’s a juvenile and melodramatic take on 60’s nuclear paranoia. De Goncourt (whoever that is), however, has a good idea.
1st level: he/she/it wants to protect art from stupid critics and bad artists. The fear is that art will become part of someone’s agenda, trivialised and vulgarised. Art is above politics and moralising. In this sense, de Goncourt is a puritan of art - a kind of formalist (the value of art lies in the relationships between the internal parts of the work; symmetry, harmony, dissonance.)
2nd level: It wants freedom. The crowd knows only purpose; everything has to have a place and a use or it’s not worthwhile. Everything is a means to an end - survival, reproduction, simple joy, money. BUT: art cannot be stuck in the realm of the merely useful. There is no freedom there, where everything that exists has an assigned, essential function. Art must be elevated beyond everyday life into a realm of decadence, of freedom from necessity.
(This elevation, strangely enough, is what some philosophers did with morality at the same time.)
3rd level: Nihilism in purpose.
Why are works of art worthwhile?
Because they teach us to see the world through another’s eyes.
Why is that a good thing?
Because we understand things we might not have understood otherwise.
What good is knowledge?
So you can live a long and happy life.
Why do I want a long and happy life?
…Isn’t that what everybody wants?
But why?
If you ask for the purpose of everything, life will soon seem cold and bare. It wants freedom from the vicious circle of asking why, so it can enjoy what exists for what it is. Nietzsche and Arendt understood this.
I think, though, that the argument against purpose works on questions like ‘what is the purpose of art?’ (‘there is no answer’), but doesn’t necessarily work on questions like ‘what did you mean by this painting?’. As long as our aims are not unified, I don’t see why aim itself should be problematic. In fact, if I have my art history right, it could be argued that strict formalism is far more unifying/nihlistic/untenable than the position outlined above. It - de Goncourt - can be read up to this point as defending the worldliness of art and the plasticity of the concept against aesthetic generalisations.
This has been an excerpt from a slightly longer train of thought.
13 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Bugger, clicked submit before I could finish. Anyway, meaning is inherent in art and just because you don’t acknowledge it doesn’t mean it’s not there, it just means it’s out of your control.
Comment by Tomás Ford — Tuesday December 28 2004 @ 10:38 am
I’m not sure what you mean…
In terms of individual artworks, meaning is an event. It takes place between an audience, an object and a cultural context which defines both, and is thus not inherent but contextual.
In terms of the significance of artistic practice as a whole, the meaning that art has for our lives, well… the kinds of art handed down to us certainly have meaning a priori or our involvement, but to take control of that meaning and invest art work with our own significance is certainly not impossible. I think it’s almost unavoidable, and quite a good idea as well.
The de Goncourt brothers (they were brothers, I checked) in this way can be read as champions of the plastic and undefinable nature of art. (In the next section I look at individual artworks and how E&J can be read as excluding certain meanings from art as a method of defense; the characteristic overreaction of formalism to more worldly or political approaches.)
Comment by Mark — Tuesday December 28 2004 @ 12:42 pm
In terms of individual artworks, meaning is an event. It takes place between an audience, an object and a cultural context which defines both, and is thus not inherent but contextual.
True, but don’t you think the artwork is created to be viewed, and that the audience is thereby made part of the artwork itself? Thus the “event” of meaning is contextual, but the context is in fact part of the artwork, too?
Comment by Robert — Wednesday December 29 2004 @ 8:51 am
Yes. I was taking a very material view of what a work of art was. If you include the audience in the ‘event’ of art, then meaning is for sure both inherent and contextual.
The fact remains though, that in a situation like that, meaning is not out of anyone’s control. The artist and the audience both have a function in determining what the work is about.
I hope Tomas posts again to tell me I’m wrong… this could be fun :)
Comment by Mark — Wednesday December 29 2004 @ 11:20 am
On the other hand, by entrusting at least part of meaning’s creation to the audience, the artist relinquishes (absolute) control over meaning. There are factors that could increase that effect — such as if the artwork is viewed by an audience that is not the audience intended by the artist.
Comment by Robert — Wednesday December 29 2004 @ 4:09 pm
*wholehearted agreement*
Comment by Mark — Wednesday December 29 2004 @ 10:49 pm
In my mind, art is merely an object in the world that is created without meaning, and exists in itself without meaning. Meaning is attached to the art by those who perceive it. In a sense, art is a vessel for a certain effect on the audience, and without the audience (even if it’s the artist herself) ceases to be art, and becomes merely a shape, form, or sound, without purpose or meaning.
Comment by Le Driver — Thursday December 30 2004 @ 7:33 am
That’s nice in theory, Le Driver, but since art must be created by an artist (even if they don’t call themself an artist), it can not exist as an empty vessel. It necessarily contains meaning, though that meaning is not immutable.
Comment by Robert — Thursday December 30 2004 @ 10:00 am
I don’t know about art, but I really like beer….
Comment by mellipop — Thursday December 30 2004 @ 2:52 pm
I think you’re all right. Espeically about liking beer. Mmmm.
Comment by Mark — Thursday December 30 2004 @ 11:19 pm
[test]
Comment by Mark — Thursday December 30 2004 @ 11:32 pm
{test}
Comment by Mark — Thursday December 30 2004 @ 11:57 pm
I’d respond that, though the art is created by an artist, it in itself is merely an object or sound in the world, unable to carry any inherent meaning. The meaning can only be carried in the mind of the artist, or the audience. The physical impression of the art creates its meaning in the mind of the artist and audience, based on how they interact with and perceive it. Well, that’s just my theory - the meaning of art has been argued about for 100’s of years, nobody’s about to come up with an answer to it. The mystery of its meaning is one of the things that makes art so enchanting.
Comment by Le Driver — Friday December 31 2004 @ 7:16 am