The question, what is art?
On my exhibitions I often encounter people who, while viewing my art are excited about one or the other motive but at the same time express that they do not actually understand anything about art. Undoubtedly there is an uncertainty about what art actually is. Much of what is praised by the critics, media or gallerist today as the highest expression of artistic creativity, is no longer identifiable by most people. They are uncertain about the viewpoint from which an evaluation is to be made.
If the performing arts are defined as a form of expression, that are meant to communicate something, such as emotions, shapes, colors and in the most cases, a message or topic, then in the final analysis it is the force with which the communication impacts on the viewer, the intensity with which his masterpiece above is expressed, which is of crucial importance.
Now, in order to set up a communication between the viewer and the art work, there minimally must be a common reality (common or similar thoughts). If this is not the case, the viewer will not be able to deal with the art work which is perfectly alright. The responsibility for a painting or sculpture to be able to communicate lies undoubtedly with the artist.
Many artists are not aware of that. Based on their own mental problems they are often no longer able, through their art works, to communicate to the viewer. They leave it up to chance whether or not their work communicates. Many artists have even begun to promote that their artistic works are not created for a potential audience. And so they create their art towards themselves or have completely abandoned to causatively create, they allow emotional outbursts to create their art work, often also under the influence of drugs. And that is exactly what is often presented as great art by gallerists and exhibitors.
Art has been very strongly psychologized since the beginning of the twentieth century. With that a trend was created that art has to be deeply emotional and come from the subconscious to really be art. On the other hand, the art work which was created with full conscious and was well considered, very soon is criticized to not be art.
Especially after the second world war it has become increasingly important, that an art work triggers associative in the viewer. If it does not do that, then today’s art critics very quickly pass the ruining sentence: “Not art”.
The phenomenon of association has thus become an important cornerstone in viewing art today. An example: If I paint an ashtray and the critic immediately thinks of lung cancer, then it would conform to today’s concept of art, but if he would merely see an ashtray, it would not be art as he understands it, or at least not important art.
It may sound cynical, but the success of many a contemporary art depends to a far greater degree on the ability of the audience to associate, than on the proficiency of the artist. Now associative “thinking” is not necessarily something good and desirable, but often a phenomenon of the unconscious and often not very helpful, because the people no longer see what really is, but what they associate. The results of that are wrong decisions, prejudices and a twisted social system.
Of course it is important and good, if art causes a mind game, an emotion, a longing or even disgust and the better an artist is at bringing this about, the more successful he will be with his art. In the past this was called edification and today we would rather speak of feedback and resonance.
But the success will always depend on how much the artist appeals with his work to the thoughts and emotions of the viewer, which in turn are heavily influenced by the environment, society and the education of the person.
Unfortunately, the education in today’s educational system is not a guarantee that somebody is able to think logically and smart.
Sometimes it even seems to be that the higher the education, the less the ability to think and act reasonable and straight.
And so it seems to me that education is not a criterion for the ability to view art.
What is being taught in art classes in schools, are often opinions about what good art is, from people, who have not really found out what an artistic process amounts to, or rather how art comes to existence.
The art market is highly competitive and one of the main tricks to strike the competition from the field is to make one’s own “understanding of art” the criteria of all things. The method used in the art scene to deny unadjusted artists the success, is to defame their art as “not art” or “not contemporary anymore”, as “trashy” or even as “smearing”.
The truth is that art can be so incredibly varied, probably as manifold as there are people who create it.
It is simply nonsense to assess a realistic landscape painting from a viewpoint of abstract art. An abstract art painting is not bad because it reveals nothing realistic in it, it is meant to cause another effect than a totally lifelike landscape painting.
There is a saying “Art is in the eye of the beholder” and this saying has a lot of truth to it, because the viewer alone decides whether or not he thinks a certain art work is successful and inspired him. For this reason alone every person who can observe, feel and look understands art.
So when you see a highly praised painting and it bores you or it just does not communicate to you, then that is perfectly alright. You do not need to assume that you don’t understand art. Do not invalidate your own ability to view art. Certain vested interests would like the viewing of art to be conditioned into a certain direction, but you must not accept that or learn it to consider yourself to be somebody who understands art.
May many more great art works come before your eyes.
Carl-W. Röhrig
Next essay: A comment on the zeitgeist in arts