I'm trying to understand what you really mean by "connection." It's such a vague word. In what sense am I connected with Godard? He's dead after all. I may be connected with him in my imagination, but I don't think that's really a concrete enough reality to be a fundamental property of art. Sure, but I don't think that art can be reduced to communication. I think what you are saying is that art is primarily something that occurs within a flattened hierarchy--it's like a horizontal exchange between human beings. That is why you emphasize the "connective" capacity of art? Does that make sense? I would say that art represents an aspiration upward, and thus the primary connection is with whatever the transcendent reality is upwards along the hierarchy, with the horizontal effect more of a byproduct. I mean, that's how it works--it has to go upwards before it can go sideways in some sense. Maybe? idk.
An artist feels. They want to express their feelings. They create. A viewer experiences the creation, the expression. A connection is made. What else can art be but a connection between creator and receiver? Why must it be concrete? The imagination is a powerful thing. Feelings are powerful things. I don't agree that communication is a "reduced" thing. And I'm not sure about the idea of a "aspiration upward." To connect with our fellow humans, after all, is a primary instinct.
... And the endless conversation grinds on, new players, same old ideas, over and over and over. Still no consensus. Still no definitive answer. Everyone has their own answer...
Well, in what sense? I'll be upfront with my personal answer: always in every sense. I write for my particular audience, which is a frankenbastard muse consisting of a few people I know and my past self. I have confidence in the universality of my themes and method of portraying the themes. But let's break this down. The audience, even if it's one person, has to be a consideration as far as format goes. The art needs to be able to affect the senses of others. It needs to be legible, viewable etc... Okay, how about descriptive language, metaphorical or otherwise? That's easy, consider: she looked like my cousin Angela. The reader doesn't know Angela. Only the author does. It's descriptively useless in the piece. It could have significance of itself, but I'm particularly referencing its value as description: none. Themes? Well, almost no consideration required. As soon as you consider a theme, if you even do at all, it's likely comprehendible by one group of humans or another. They are perfectly capable of coming away from your art with the opposite of your intended meaning (or whatever unspeakable meaning you felt while creating it), however. It's still a message in a bottle, radio waves sent into outer space a hundred thousand years ago, no way around that. That's why I'm forced to apply confidence to the unknown, and I really would never want to tell someone they understood my character wrong, or they 'just don't get it.' The audience is the other half. IMO, art is always 50% creator 50% audience. Each one has an input.
One necessarily leads to the other, as long as the writing is well-crafted. I suppose art provides more room for interpretation. In conversation, we don't especially like to be misunderstood. Why is art different?
I write nonfiction with an audience in mind because I write nonfiction to sell. I write fiction without worrying about who is going to read it. I make art without worrying about who is going to look at it, unless I am deliberately designing an embroidery to be taught to students either in person or through text/correspondence course. In embroidery teacher's parlance, those items are known as "trophy classes" and need to lend themselves to step-by-step instructions. Embroideries and other art done for my own pleasure don't have that limitation.
I'll say it. I consider myself an artist and the works I create to be art. I assume what I write will be published well I'm writing it, but I don't really write with an audience in mind. But you kind of want to write for someone. For me, it's an editor I've worked with many times at the same publication. Sure, sometimes I'm trying to win him over a little. He's tough and super smart. It's a little pit of a challenge to try to impress him. And sometimes I do. Other times I'll write a story, thinking when it's done I'll send it to my best friend who is also a writer and we both have published short stories in some of the top publications. I like to try things out on her and I trust her judgement. Plus, aiming for her can be a lot of fun. She likes when I get all avant-garde with my stories. Last time I sent her a story, she helped me get it published. But I only had her in mind and had to tell it her might be too weird before she even read it. I also have a mentor who is always willing to look at my stuff and give me advice. I consider him a friend. He's taught me a lot about writing and publishing. If I think of him as my audience, I probably write cleaner and more polished. He's a hard one to impress, but he really believes in me and my writing. Sometimes I write letters to people who aren't here anymore. I guess what I'm saying is that sometimes I will write to please the fiction editor at The New Yorker. But I'm not even think about the whole editorial department, let alone all The New Yorker readers. I think if you thought like the you would have to be insane. I aim to please one person at a time with what I write.
And it really is a special thing when they get it, isn't it? It's a special thing when that connection is made. I've read stories that have opened up a whole world to me, and I have also read award-winning stories that I just didn't get. Maybe it was me. Maybe it was some deficiency in my understanding or a shortcoming on my part. It happens. But sometimes, too, the writer may be esoteric in their craft.
Today I am reading about performance art. Three well-known pieces of performance art: Trans-fixed (1974) by Chris Burden, in which he crucified himself to a Volkswagen Beetle. Cut Piece (1964) by Yoko Ono, in which the audience was invited to come up and cut off her clothes with scissors while she sat motionless. Rhythm-O (1974) by Marina Abramović, a 6-hour performance during which the audience (who were also part of the piece) were given access to a table of 72 objects and told they could do anything they wanted to the artist, without consequence. Art critic Thomas McEvilley, who was present, wrote: It began tamely. Someone turned her around. Someone thrust her arms into the air. Someone touched her somewhat intimately. The Neapolitan night began to heat up. In the third hour all her clothes were cut from her with razor blades. In the fourth hour the same blades began to explore her skin. Her throat was slashed so someone could suck her blood. Various minor sexual assaults were carried out on her body. She was so committed to the piece that she would not have resisted rape or murder. Faced with her abdication of will, with its implied collapse of human psychology, a protective group began to define itself in the audience. When a loaded gun was thrust to Marina's head and her own finger was being worked around the trigger, a fight broke out between the audience factions.
If something is the product of human creativity, then it is art. Whether it is good or bad, the function served by any given piece of art, artist's intent versus interpretation of the viewer/reader/listener, is up for debate.
Now THAT is a question: what makes art different from conversation? I 100% believe in the necessity of the artist's death, but I've never had to articulate why. Is it safe to say you don't write exclusively for that editor, though? You wouldn't likely write in-jokes with him in mind, or metaphors that only have meaning between the two of you. That consideration of him extends naturally to the entire dept., and from the dept. the readers. A strong muse! That's what I was sort of on about re: descriptive language. It's typically universal concepts used, meant to improve the reach of the material's meaning. It's the same thing with clarity. That's ultimately a constant consideration for the audience.
No. I literally write with one person in mind. That's all. I don't look beyond that while I'm writing. After my writing is on submission, I hope it makes it through the whole editorial decision process and ultimately reaches readers, but that's not something I think about while writing. The idea of a big audience shakes my nerves. The idea of writing to just please one person is a lot easier. And in the end, if I can write to please one person and I succeed, well, things could take off from there. But I'm still just writing to please one person. I'm not writing inside jokes or anything like that in my work anyway and don't see why I would. I'm a professional and I treat my writing accordingly. I remember my first big sale and the idea that tens of thousands of people were going to read my story really freaked me out. I could have never written a story thinking about the audience that that story ultimately received. That would be just too crazy for me to comprehend during the writing process and would have ultimately tripped me up. I stand by my statement that I write to please just one person.
So called modern art, in my opinion seems like whatever trash someone threw together and managed to get a suckered to buy. Art needs to stir an emotion inside you, like the Mona Lisa, or a beautiful landscape. Not a desire to vomit, as some of the modern art does for me.
Here's some modern art inspired by Renaissance painters - A Dream of Paradise Remembered by the Morning Light, 2017, by Adam Miller
I heard a great line about art today. Abstract art was created when Van Gough said how can I get paid for the sh$t I did when I was three.
Van Gogh was not an abstract artist. He is considered a post-impressionist. The images below show paintings of the same café. The first one is Café Terrace at Night (1888) by Vincent Van Gogh. The second one is a realistic interpretation entitled Café Van Gogh (1962) by Haixia Liu. To my eye, the Van Gogh shows a greater intensity and mood. Not just the colours, but the people. You can read more about the Van Gogh here: Café Terrace at Night, 1888 by Vincent Van Gogh
It's an interesting comparison. I've loved Van Gogh's work since the first time I saw a painting in deYoung Museum back in the 1960s. Liu's rendition reminds me of Thomas Kincaid, Painter of Light, albeit without as much kitsch.
Abstract art is art with no figures (people or animals basically) or recognizable objects (buildings, haystacks, carriages etc). It's a part of Modern art, which as I understand it began with the Impressionists (Monet, Pissaro etc) and I think ran up through somewhere in the 50's, 60's or 70's before petering out and giving way to Postmodernist art. It's been said that Classical art was a window that was supposed to be completely transparent, you're meant to see right through the window (as if a painting itself is a window) and focus on what you see through it. With Modern art the windowframe and the 'glass' became important. The focus was largely on the surface of the window (the canvas, the way the paint is handled etc). And then with Postmodern art the focus became more about messages written on the surface of the window, like political screeds written in menstrual blood on a blank canvas for instance. It's more about what the artist is trying to say rather than how it's being said or what is being said.
Art conveys essence IMO. Of something. As such, it can possess many of the qualities and do many of the things posited so far.
Of a moment. Of a form. Of a scene. Of a feeling or mood. Of a contradiction. Of a unity. Of an ideal. Of an anti-ideal. Of an insight or idea. Others?
I am amazed by the beauty in nature. Is this not art? Then who is the artist? What answer is there for a scientific pantheist who eschews supernatural explanations?
