Sunday, March 12, 2006

Art and communication

Here's a fun little theory:
Art communicates to people. If it is really good, it even communicates to people who have not seen it directly in the physical world, and maybe other kinds of spirits and places.
The parts that communicate most directly to humans are what makes it succesful commercially.
The other parts don't, but they are more important because they influence the whole world.
Thus the conflict of the artist.
UPDATE: I am not being clear. Another attempt:
An artist has a contract with god and the universe. And a relationship with humanity. These two can conflict. In the rare, most brilliant art they can work in harmony.


Lee said...

Mmm...not sure. To me art has to appeal to me. For it to appeal to the 'whole world', it appeals to...who?

I do take on the problem of art gallery directors who have to make a decision as to what to purchase from the public purse, knowing full well that everyone will not like their choice.

But I have never seen a director say "I bought this piece because it will appeal to the larger population. Personally, I would use it to wrap Christmas presents." They buy things that they like and hope that, like the emperor and his new clothes, the public, not wanting to be seen as wanting, will cry "Oh, don't they look grand!"

Anonymous said...

your updated explanation says a lot and i like this definition.

Anonymous said...

"The first impulse towards painting, or towards art in general, stems from the need to communicate, the effort to fix one's own vision, to deal with appearances (which are alien and must be given names and meanings). Without this, all work would be pointless and unjustified, like Art for Art's Sake."

So begins Gerhard Richter's 'The Daily Practice of Painting: Writings 1962-1993'.