A friend recently gave me a copy of the book cataloging all the art in the National Gallery in Washington, DC. He had the book sitting around collecting dust so he gave it to me thinking I might appreciate it. Thumbing through that book raised a very complex question that I have been grappling with for years; "Who decides what great art is?"
This discussion is probably above my pay grade. Smarter people than I have been debating this issue for centuries and it will certainly not be solved here on my little blog. But, since this is my blog and I can talk about whatever I want, I choose to talk about this issue which has long befuddled me. (I entered art school 17 years ago - I have been pondering this issue at least that long).
It seems to me that there are a finite number of answers to the question, "who gets to determine what is or isn't art?" It's either: 1) the public at large through some type of general consensus, 2) a subset of the public who has been given the authority to declare such things whether the public likes it or not, 3) the artist gets to declare, or 4) somehow the art itself irrefutably adheres to the highest of artistic standards placing it beyond subjective opinion. Those are our only options - it seems to me.
Well, obviously - best case scenario, all 4 of those things will be in play. In really great art - the trans-generational art of the masters, you see all 4. The paintings of Monet are a good example of this. Among the impressionists of his day, Monet was the leader. He had a profound impact on artists such as Renoir, Degas and Cezanne who in turn impacted many others. Today, the artistic
community unequivocally recognizes Monet's mastery and his importance in the story of art. But, it is not just the artistic elite who praise his work. In our day the public at large gobbles up Monet images at shopping mall poster shops and the calendar section of book stores. People with very little understanding (or concern) for impressionism as a movement, nevertheless find something to relate to in Monet's work. That's significant.
There seems to be something irrefutable about many of Monet's paintings. Even outside of an
understanding of impressionism, his paintings speak for themselves. It is almost as if there is some sort of slippery and hard to quantify "golden mean" of artistic excellence that his work adheres to. Issues like color, balance, symmetry, atmosphere, light, form, technical rendering, etc - are all treated so adeptly by Monet within the style in which he worked.
There is also the issue that Monet paintings are great because Monet painted them. He seems to have earned that right. If a long lost painting of Monet's was discovered it would be worth millions simply because of who painted it. He is such a heavy hitter he can determine his own strike zone - set his own rules.
So, in the case of Monet - the artistic community, the public, the art itself and the credibility of the artist all point to the excellence of his work. He is an easy example. The difficulty comes when you consider art that does not have all four sources. What do we do with artwork by unproven artists? What about work from artists that the public enjoys but are shunned by the artistic community (ie. Thomas Kincade)? What about all those artists whose wor
k is praised by the artistic community but is completely unintelligible to the public. The artistic elite is content to call everyone else "stupid" for not understanding great art or great artists - but is that ok? It is possible for the artistic community to label someone as an artist and then praise whatever that artist does. Is that a bit out of whack? (The painting on your right is by an artist named Jo Baer. It can be found at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art)
I will no doubt explore this issue in future posts. The main issue is this, if most art does not have all four sources arguing for its excellence, then which source is most important? Who is the real gatekeeper? Is it the public? It is the artistic community? Is it the artist? Or, is there a "golden mean" of excellence in every art form to which artists must aspire?
This issue becomes much more personal when we start talking about popular art forms such as movies and popular music - particularly in the Christian arena. Whose art is praise worthy? Who gets to decide? What's the criteria?
This discussion is probably above my pay grade. Smarter people than I have been debating this issue for centuries and it will certainly not be solved here on my little blog. But, since this is my blog and I can talk about whatever I want, I choose to talk about this issue which has long befuddled me. (I entered art school 17 years ago - I have been pondering this issue at least that long).
It seems to me that there are a finite number of answers to the question, "who gets to determine what is or isn't art?" It's either: 1) the public at large through some type of general consensus, 2) a subset of the public who has been given the authority to declare such things whether the public likes it or not, 3) the artist gets to declare, or 4) somehow the art itself irrefutably adheres to the highest of artistic standards placing it beyond subjective opinion. Those are our only options - it seems to me.
Well, obviously - best case scenario, all 4 of those things will be in play. In really great art - the trans-generational art of the masters, you see all 4. The paintings of Monet are a good example of this. Among the impressionists of his day, Monet was the leader. He had a profound impact on artists such as Renoir, Degas and Cezanne who in turn impacted many others. Today, the artistic
community unequivocally recognizes Monet's mastery and his importance in the story of art. But, it is not just the artistic elite who praise his work. In our day the public at large gobbles up Monet images at shopping mall poster shops and the calendar section of book stores. People with very little understanding (or concern) for impressionism as a movement, nevertheless find something to relate to in Monet's work. That's significant.There seems to be something irrefutable about many of Monet's paintings. Even outside of an
understanding of impressionism, his paintings speak for themselves. It is almost as if there is some sort of slippery and hard to quantify "golden mean" of artistic excellence that his work adheres to. Issues like color, balance, symmetry, atmosphere, light, form, technical rendering, etc - are all treated so adeptly by Monet within the style in which he worked.There is also the issue that Monet paintings are great because Monet painted them. He seems to have earned that right. If a long lost painting of Monet's was discovered it would be worth millions simply because of who painted it. He is such a heavy hitter he can determine his own strike zone - set his own rules.
So, in the case of Monet - the artistic community, the public, the art itself and the credibility of the artist all point to the excellence of his work. He is an easy example. The difficulty comes when you consider art that does not have all four sources. What do we do with artwork by unproven artists? What about work from artists that the public enjoys but are shunned by the artistic community (ie. Thomas Kincade)? What about all those artists whose wor
k is praised by the artistic community but is completely unintelligible to the public. The artistic elite is content to call everyone else "stupid" for not understanding great art or great artists - but is that ok? It is possible for the artistic community to label someone as an artist and then praise whatever that artist does. Is that a bit out of whack? (The painting on your right is by an artist named Jo Baer. It can be found at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art)I will no doubt explore this issue in future posts. The main issue is this, if most art does not have all four sources arguing for its excellence, then which source is most important? Who is the real gatekeeper? Is it the public? It is the artistic community? Is it the artist? Or, is there a "golden mean" of excellence in every art form to which artists must aspire?
This issue becomes much more personal when we start talking about popular art forms such as movies and popular music - particularly in the Christian arena. Whose art is praise worthy? Who gets to decide? What's the criteria?
3 comments:
One more thought to toss into the blend- from what I've seen, visual art is one of the only art forms common today in which an artist is praised simply for expressing himself, however unintelligibly. Imagine, for instance, a young, talented dancer auditioning for a spot at Juliard. He gets up onstage, judges watching, and immediately begins to jump about and make gurgling sounds with his throat. No rhythm at all. Just pure, heartfelt, honest expression of whatever mood he happens to be in at that particular moment. Would he be praised as an artistic genius or kicked off of the stage for wasting the school official's time? Would the answer be any different if the medium were oil paint?
The first post had a few laughable typos.
Post a Comment