Wednesday, May 20, 2009

The "rap" of an artist

In the comments of this post, Mike J says this, and I hope he forgives me for copying:

By "rap" in this case I mean the spiel that an artist develops ostensibly to explain what it is they're doing. Often, this functions as a sort of meta-communication: they're signifying more than they're saying. The hidden message might be "I'm intelligent," or "you can't understand this," or "I deserve to be taken seriously." Often, too, the "rap" tells a viewer how to feel about the work, either co-opting the viewer's own unruly responses or suggesting a framework for understanding and acceptance for those who won't bother to decide for themselves.

I had a very interesting experience with this early on. Joe Cameron curated a show of works in progress that had, I think, six or eight "openings," week after week. Each week, each of several artists would show how their work was progressing and talk a little bit about it. A fascinating experience and one that was important to me.

Anyway, one of the experiences of that show for me was that one artist, who had strong work, actually made her work seem less strong to me because she had a weak rap for it; another artist actually managed to make relatively weak work stronger because he was able to talk about it vividly and brilliantly. It didn't change my absolute impression of the work--hers was still better than his--but it really did have an effect on my perception. Even though I was perfectly conscious of how my perception was being manipulated. I've never forgotten that.

I think this is highly interesting.
Some people seem to like, nay, to demand, that an artist not only must be able to, but should explain his work, precisely and at length.

I am not sure, there may be cases where this is an enhancement of the work and experience, but I'm very hesitant about it.

For one thing, he might inadvertently belittle his work. For example, I read an interview with David Bowie where the journalist asked about meaning of a song (I think it was Bus Stop), and Bowie said "oh it's just a silly little song" or words to that effect. What if the listener had a great, uplifting experience from a song/painting/book, and the author pulls it down like that?

For another thing, if art can really be explained in words, why have art at all? Can you explain Beethoven's Fifth? (Do you think Beethoven could? If he could, I doubt I'd want him to.)

For a third thing, contrarywise to what might be reasonably expected, I think often the artist does not understand his own work a lot better than any other member of the audience. He may be the artist, but he is also just another audience member.
For instance, my drawing the Swan And The Swine was done very quickly under great time pressure, for a poster for a theater/music show. (The original was not colored.) Yet it was very successful, and many people later asked me: is it a tree or a mushroom cloud? And all I can say is 1: I only thought of it as a tree when I drew it, but 2: it clearly also could be a mushroom cloud, and I clearly could not have drawn it in any other way, so... even as the artist, I must just have the humility to say 'what the bleep do I know'?...

And continuing the third point, it is not hard to find many books or songs written "just for money", but which turned out to be great and significant work. Clearly the art can be much bigger than the artist, and I think it's hubris to assume should know all there is to say and think about it, much less try to nail it down for others.

Which brings me to the fourth point: it seems to be very hard to say anything at all about a work without interpreting it to some degree. And by doing so, you limit or block other interpretations. Which is a crime, again because no single person can see the whole of Art.

7 comments:

Ray said...

Art isn't only an exercise in sensory perception - it's also an emotional experience, and it's very difficult for one's emotions to define or dictate another's. Great art inspires similar emotions in the majority of those who experience it,
but that's not true of all art. Some of it never gets past the sensory perception stage to reach our emotions.

Bronislaus Janulis / Framewright said...

Nice piece; I missed the original at TOP. Over at Luminous L. there is a thread thats segued into "what is art" sort of thing. Picasso is mentioned, and I think of him as the most gifted "rapper" of the 20th c., not the greatest artist. An intense, viral, charismatic individual, rapping people into the belief that he was the greatest. Need to practice my raps.

Sukiho said...

A rap is like the title of a painting or song I think, it has to sound and feel like something but doesnt have to mean anything, sort of like poetry I guess

People want something to clutch on to but as soon as they have it the mystery is gone and they lose interest

I find Bob Dylan an interesting case, regarded by some as the greatest lyricist of his time and yet has never once given in to demands that he explain what hes singing about

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Thanks, guys, all good points, really.

Sukiho's first point: I suspect you're right. And that's part of what I protest about. If people communicate, they should fucking communicate, I hate all that blablabla that does not mean anything and nobody notices.

Anonymous said...

Often, too, the "rap" tells a viewer how to feel about the work, either co-opting the viewer's own unruly responses or suggesting a framework for understanding and acceptance for those who won't bother to decide for themselves.

This could be said of a lot of things. Should we not read Shakespeare criticism, even after we've exhausted our own insights? Should I not have read Bernard Knox's introduction in Robert Fagles' translation of the Iliad, even after I had read the poem myself? He had insights into the work, and knowledge of the history surrounding it, that few non-specialists could ever come up with.

Look at a work of art, decide what it says to you, etc., and then read the "rap."

Anonymous said...

I think this is highly interesting.

Really? It's just the same old crap that a lot of lazy people try to lay on us.

Some people seem to like, nay, to demand, that an artist not only must be able to, but should explain his work, precisely and at length.

They should be able to, and they should have to. Otherwise it would be impossible to distinguish it from all the garbage.

and Bowie said "oh it's just a silly little song" or words to that effect. What if the listener had a great, uplifting experience from a song/painting/book, and the author pulls it down like that?

That's not his problem. If he wrote it and it had no real significance to him, was just a harmless, fun little song - now he's got a responsibility to all the people who have built it up into something it's not? Besides, his saying that should mean nothing to the person to whom the song is something more. There can be more going on in an artist's work - song, short sory, novel, poem, painting, sculpture, whatever - than the artist himself is aware of.

For another thing, if art can really be explained in words, why have art at all? Can you explain Beethoven's Fifth? (Do you think Beethoven could? If he could, I doubt I'd want him to.)

The explanation is not a replacement for the art, but can lead to a greater appreciation and/or understanding of the work. There is much more to great music than just the music itself, and dissecting it does not destroy the work. You're of the Dead Poets Society school of thought that analyzing a work destroys it. It doesn't.

And continuing the third point, it is not hard to find many books or songs written "just for money", but which turned out to be great and significant work.

The Godfather movies were done only for the money, yet are considered great classics (except for the third one). Coppola said that there was nothing "personal" about them, as many critics have suggested, but this does not take anything away. A critique of them also does not take anything away.

Clearly the art can be much bigger than the artist, and I think it's hubris to assume should know all there is to say and think about it, much less try to nail it down for others.

It's grossly arrogant to assume that the artist's intentions, etc., have no significance and that they cannot contribute to a greater understanding of the work. It's unfortunate if some people take the artist's explanation as the be-all and end-all, but we cannot self-censor for those people.

t seems to be very hard to say anything at all about a work without interpreting it to some degree. And by doing so, you limit or block other interpretations.

That may be true for you, but not for the majority ofpeople. Think about it yourself first, then see if others' interpretations including those of the artist can add anything.

Himself said...

One filmmaker I know has said after I watched his movie that he wanted to know the movie I saw.