Talking a little bit about art-- its been a while

I woke up thinking about the nature of art, and what it had the ability to do. I spent a lot of time arguing with myself over whether or not art ought to do something. Whether or not it should have a purpose. And I found myself adding to the discussion while beating around the bush about whether or not it should have a purpose, so I figured I would write it down. I certainly believe that art should be an experience, and that it should not only be made available to those who can afford to do it. Which means that I believe graffiti is just as much of a legitimate form of art as any other artwork. As long as its done with care.

I tend to dislike corporate artwork-- stuff thats sold to the masses has no heart -- it doesn't care about anything but how much revenue that it can generate. And I believe that, at its heart, art ought to be free from those constraints. Which is why I am not against government sponsored art programs. To me, this means that artwork ought to be somehow personal but unafraid of criticism. Punches must not be held back because I believe that self conscious art leads to obfuscation. I believe that Art should speak for itself. If people cannot understand it without a three hour lecture, i'm not convinced that its art, so much as an practice in mental masturbation.

When asked whether or not a computer generated mona lisa would be as good as the original, I would say no. But why? If the colors were identical, and the strokes were copied perfectly, it would not carry the same value. In fact, replicas are made all the time, and aren't weathered the same way-- so quantitatively some might argue that the replicas are better. But I have never bought those arguments. Those kinds of replicas aren't done with care. They don't have a story to tell, like the original does. The experience is adulterated by the knowledge that people (potentially without any artistic vision... whatever that means) wanted to make even more money off of someone else's hard work. Lame.

However, I believe that banksy's work tends to be art. Even if lots of it is replicated, its tongue in cheek shots at some of the new trends in society are, I would argue, helpful. It points out the absurdities of modern society without being utterly disgusting. Its good because it hits home without turning stomachs. I understand that repulsive art is meant to be experienced as such, but I also believe that the world is a scary enough place, and that art could be a legitimate form of escapism. And I can't speak for everyone else, but i prefer my escapism to be energizing, not make me want to slit my wrists. Obviously, artists are free to express themselves in whatever way they want, but i'm not convinced that they are helping things.

Dreadful art has, in the past, demotivated the hell out of me. In one instance, it gave me an image of the world as being utterly and insufferably complex-- full of people with no compassion. And so I wonder, what was the artist attempting to do? That kind of dread-- that kind of generated apathy doesn't help things. If people are convinced that there is nothing out there-- that there is no reason to help one another, the art piece becomes, in many ways, a self fulfilling prophecy. I believe in the potential for human compassion and believe that, at the heart and soul of the world, things aren't as bad as they seem.

I believe that art has the ability illuminate a very specific truth (something that I believe is a very, very relative thing). I suppose that, to me, artistic vision is the ability for somebody to explain their particular truth to an audience in a way that viscerally or intellectually affects an audience. I don't believe that the truth exists in a sui generous universe, which has emancipatory potential. Instead, I believe that truth is largely contextual-- and being able to illuminate bits of the truth can be very beautiful.

So on the subject of art, I'll leave you with the words of one of my good friends Harrison B. When he joined a discussion of art that I was having with another friend Alexa, he said that "Art is inevitable." While this doesn't answer whether or not art should have a purpose, its certainly food for thought.
As for what that means to me, or means to you-- thats a discussion for another day.

-Ron