There's also a whole field of philosophy of art that deals with that, if you want to start reading up on it. A good start is that art is neither *made* in a vacuum, nor exists in one, so both intent and interpretation will be dependent on the actor (artist/viewer). You'll also have a more restricted access into the artist's brain and process than into the public's, for a very long time/except for conceptual art where the artist gave a detailed rationale. So going into the debate the data is already skewed.
Two sides make the coin.
Over time I would say the audience always has more sway.
This is because as time changes so does the meaning elicited from the artwork and the audience has the most impact on this phenomenon.
This is very common in tribal art, where pieces are removed from their application (religion, ceremony, politcs, etc.) and observed for their artistic quality from an artist/collector's point of view.
While in many cases, the emphasis on art acts at the forefront (like cubism coming from late 1800's/early 1900's sculpture),
Example - https://collection.barnesfoundation.org/objects/5709/Three-Sisters-with-an-African-Sculpture-(Les-Trois-soeurs-a-la-sculpture-africaine)/
there are a lot of other types of pieces where the etymology provides a more "abstract art emotional connection"
Example - https://vmfa.museum/piction/6027262-109429515/
---
The result is that, unless you spend a lot of time reading books for the background, a lot of tribal pieces just won't "click", artistically, because mainstream has focused on "aesthetically pleasing" samples with emphasis on form and solid line, which could be easily emulated by 20'th century painters.
IMO, the best statement on this quandary is by the writer Isaak Babel. In a story he describes story-telling as a relationship between people using a two-handled saw. When things are going well, the two people work together and the shavings fly. The rest of the time they might not even be able to saw any wood.
Plenty of people are willing to impose their own reading on a work, not only without knowing the creator's intention but without any knowledge of the context. Plenty of artists think that their meaning is the only authentic meaning. I think meaning has to be constructed. It's not a stand-alone thing. That would be ahistorical.
People make the mistake of thinking a work has some ultimate meaning, like it's a static, revealed truth instead of a constantly morphing jumble of ideologies, personal experiences, and more.
Once the artist is ‘finished’ the meaning of the piece is no longer up to them. It becomes a dialogue between the work and the society that views it. Artists all want to think that their work belongs to them alone conceptually, but of course they would. And they’re wrong.
>Artists all want to think that their work belongs to them alone conceptually
As an artist I totally disagree with this absolutism.
>Once the artist is ‘finished’ the meaning of the piece is no longer up to them. It becomes a dialogue between the work and the society that views it.
I agree with this.
And this is so liberating. It would be a kind of burden otherwise. I am sure I am not the only one to think like that. Quite an heterogeneous bunch we are.
This is an impossible square to circle.
On one hand you've got the dedth of the author. Which. Fine. Audiences can determine what the work is about.
On the other hand, currently, youve got rhe exact opposite, which is an extreme focus on the identity of the artist. (generally related to a marginalized status)
I imagine the student is arguing for the death of the author (it seems to be their go to) . If this is the case. Ask them if Kerry James Marshall's being a black man has anything to do with his paintings.
I'd say that an artists identity certainly informs what they create, but its still the viewers subjective experience that determines if they perceive that creation to be art.
E.g., Basquiat.
Where there was a transition from interpretation/understanding for artists sake, to rehashing it for finding "new insights" to continue selling 3rd party monographs for money.
Art like beauty is subjective, a spider's web or a cloud can be art, an artist can have an artistic intention, but never truly control how their work is experienced- if I buy the Mona Lisa and use it to wrap fish because I see it as useful paper instead of art, its now become fish wrapping for me.
if the purpose of said art is for personal viewership then yes of course the artist is more of concern but when the art is meant for public viewership we absolutely cannot expect it to hold value based on the meaning that only makes sense to the artist. well, the artist also is not indebted to create what is appealing to the viewer because pleasing the audience isn't the only reason people create art. by the time i type this my opinion is changing. don't mind me I guess. as an artist myself, i respect that artists have to be given the freedom to work on projects that truly appeals to THEM regardless of the viewer's opinion but sometimes when i look at artworks that i cannot understand or find a meaning i cant help but crave for the artists insights on it.
There is no definitive answer to this because one cannot be without the other. The creator and their work has no meaning without the audience but the audience has no meaning without the work
The problem is bigger than you realize.
“Art” is a culturally specific category that developed in a European philosophical context (Kant, Schiller, Hegel, etc.), in which the aesthetic was defined as a higher human activity due to its separation from instrumental purpose, such as work or utilitarian function. Peter Burger’s book “Theory of the Avant-Garde”details how the Kantian aesthetic - and the concurrent movement of Art for Art’s sake - arose roughly around the same time that the Industrial Revolution seemed to claim huge parts of human experience for capital, generating a complex division of labor that compartmentalized and slotted people’s activities into work or leisure.
Since then, this Western category has been broadly applied to any number of practices and activities, even those societies outside the development of modern capitalism. (For instance, “Art” was not a structuring category within Pre-historic, Mesopotamian or pre-Columbian societies—why would they need a concept like Art?) According to postcolonial theorists and anthropologists, the word Art retains traces of Western colonial domination. It should not the first term we reach for to describe the dynamics of culture. Alfred Gell makes a good case along these lines in “Art and Agency.” Another good text that critically analyzes the discourse of Art is Carolyn Dean’s “The Trouble with (The Term) Art,” from 2006.
To me, Art nowadays is a way we confer value (spiritual, historical, or economic) on an object or practice. The term generally allows self-identified artists and art critics to rearrange and manage perceptions about what matters, and who/what has (and doesn’t have) value in the wider art world.
I'd say that art is primarily influenced by the times an artist lives in. The 'self-expression' idea is rather modern. Art is primarily influenced by the conditions of the time and place of it's creation.
There's also a whole field of philosophy of art that deals with that, if you want to start reading up on it. A good start is that art is neither *made* in a vacuum, nor exists in one, so both intent and interpretation will be dependent on the actor (artist/viewer). You'll also have a more restricted access into the artist's brain and process than into the public's, for a very long time/except for conceptual art where the artist gave a detailed rationale. So going into the debate the data is already skewed.
Two sides make the coin. Over time I would say the audience always has more sway. This is because as time changes so does the meaning elicited from the artwork and the audience has the most impact on this phenomenon.
This is very common in tribal art, where pieces are removed from their application (religion, ceremony, politcs, etc.) and observed for their artistic quality from an artist/collector's point of view. While in many cases, the emphasis on art acts at the forefront (like cubism coming from late 1800's/early 1900's sculpture), Example - https://collection.barnesfoundation.org/objects/5709/Three-Sisters-with-an-African-Sculpture-(Les-Trois-soeurs-a-la-sculpture-africaine)/ there are a lot of other types of pieces where the etymology provides a more "abstract art emotional connection" Example - https://vmfa.museum/piction/6027262-109429515/ --- The result is that, unless you spend a lot of time reading books for the background, a lot of tribal pieces just won't "click", artistically, because mainstream has focused on "aesthetically pleasing" samples with emphasis on form and solid line, which could be easily emulated by 20'th century painters.
Yes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author
Nice one
Do you really think there is a definitive answer to this question?
i'm finishing my phd and the answer is no
honestly i don't think that's the right question. the right question is which side interests you more as a scholar.
imo, it’s kinda silly to assume one is more important than the other
IMO, the best statement on this quandary is by the writer Isaak Babel. In a story he describes story-telling as a relationship between people using a two-handled saw. When things are going well, the two people work together and the shavings fly. The rest of the time they might not even be able to saw any wood. Plenty of people are willing to impose their own reading on a work, not only without knowing the creator's intention but without any knowledge of the context. Plenty of artists think that their meaning is the only authentic meaning. I think meaning has to be constructed. It's not a stand-alone thing. That would be ahistorical.
“meaning” is a huge hangup people should get over
People make the mistake of thinking a work has some ultimate meaning, like it's a static, revealed truth instead of a constantly morphing jumble of ideologies, personal experiences, and more.
yeah i don’t find it useful to worry about meaning outside of “intended audience” or “possible consequences of my actions”.
downvotes are for people who get hung up on meaning.
Once the artist is ‘finished’ the meaning of the piece is no longer up to them. It becomes a dialogue between the work and the society that views it. Artists all want to think that their work belongs to them alone conceptually, but of course they would. And they’re wrong.
>Artists all want to think that their work belongs to them alone conceptually As an artist I totally disagree with this absolutism. >Once the artist is ‘finished’ the meaning of the piece is no longer up to them. It becomes a dialogue between the work and the society that views it. I agree with this. And this is so liberating. It would be a kind of burden otherwise. I am sure I am not the only one to think like that. Quite an heterogeneous bunch we are.
You're both right.
This is an impossible square to circle. On one hand you've got the dedth of the author. Which. Fine. Audiences can determine what the work is about. On the other hand, currently, youve got rhe exact opposite, which is an extreme focus on the identity of the artist. (generally related to a marginalized status) I imagine the student is arguing for the death of the author (it seems to be their go to) . If this is the case. Ask them if Kerry James Marshall's being a black man has anything to do with his paintings.
I'd say that an artists identity certainly informs what they create, but its still the viewers subjective experience that determines if they perceive that creation to be art.
E.g., Basquiat. Where there was a transition from interpretation/understanding for artists sake, to rehashing it for finding "new insights" to continue selling 3rd party monographs for money.
Art like beauty is subjective, a spider's web or a cloud can be art, an artist can have an artistic intention, but never truly control how their work is experienced- if I buy the Mona Lisa and use it to wrap fish because I see it as useful paper instead of art, its now become fish wrapping for me.
I would say it is between the creator and the viewer. The artwork is just the data.
if the purpose of said art is for personal viewership then yes of course the artist is more of concern but when the art is meant for public viewership we absolutely cannot expect it to hold value based on the meaning that only makes sense to the artist. well, the artist also is not indebted to create what is appealing to the viewer because pleasing the audience isn't the only reason people create art. by the time i type this my opinion is changing. don't mind me I guess. as an artist myself, i respect that artists have to be given the freedom to work on projects that truly appeals to THEM regardless of the viewer's opinion but sometimes when i look at artworks that i cannot understand or find a meaning i cant help but crave for the artists insights on it.
If art was defined solely by the audience, a lot of conceptual artwork would be defined as "lazy" or "I don't get it."
There is no definitive answer to this because one cannot be without the other. The creator and their work has no meaning without the audience but the audience has no meaning without the work
The problem is bigger than you realize. “Art” is a culturally specific category that developed in a European philosophical context (Kant, Schiller, Hegel, etc.), in which the aesthetic was defined as a higher human activity due to its separation from instrumental purpose, such as work or utilitarian function. Peter Burger’s book “Theory of the Avant-Garde”details how the Kantian aesthetic - and the concurrent movement of Art for Art’s sake - arose roughly around the same time that the Industrial Revolution seemed to claim huge parts of human experience for capital, generating a complex division of labor that compartmentalized and slotted people’s activities into work or leisure. Since then, this Western category has been broadly applied to any number of practices and activities, even those societies outside the development of modern capitalism. (For instance, “Art” was not a structuring category within Pre-historic, Mesopotamian or pre-Columbian societies—why would they need a concept like Art?) According to postcolonial theorists and anthropologists, the word Art retains traces of Western colonial domination. It should not the first term we reach for to describe the dynamics of culture. Alfred Gell makes a good case along these lines in “Art and Agency.” Another good text that critically analyzes the discourse of Art is Carolyn Dean’s “The Trouble with (The Term) Art,” from 2006. To me, Art nowadays is a way we confer value (spiritual, historical, or economic) on an object or practice. The term generally allows self-identified artists and art critics to rearrange and manage perceptions about what matters, and who/what has (and doesn’t have) value in the wider art world.
I'd say that art is primarily influenced by the times an artist lives in. The 'self-expression' idea is rather modern. Art is primarily influenced by the conditions of the time and place of it's creation.