Alyson Weege at McLean Project for the Arts

It's well known by now that I've had a difficult time obtaining digital images from the current show at McLean Project for the Arts. I sent an email explaining the situation to each of the artists. Alyson Weege responded with two emails, one with images attached and another with her Web site address. I'm not sure if she understands the seriousness of this event. Regardless, I'm going to post images of the two paintings she has in the show.

Weege's work interested me a great deal. Each painting squeezes in an enormous amount of content, both compositionally and narratively. Her paintings remind me of Julee Holcombe's digital images shown at Conner Contemporary Art this past summer. While the actual content/story in Weege's paintings doesn't interest me much, you can't help but admire her ability as a painter. Weege's paintings force you to give them some time. For me, that alone is quite an accomplishment. If I understood the complete narration in each painting I'm sure I would like the work even more.

Hero

Butterfly Girl

Comments

[Lenny]

I like them quite a lot; I am glad she sent you the images...

[Anna L. Conti]

These digital images make me wish I could see the paintings in person - I like what I see so far. It doesn't matter if I understand it (the narrative) all at once. That's what spending time with the painting is all about - gleaning new insights with each viewing. I paint narrative works myself, and I'm very curious about the "please explain it to me" reactions of many people. Can you respond on that issue? Do you need more or less explanatory info about abstract work,or conceptual work? And why? Thanks.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Hi Anna! Thanks for writing!

The thing about narrative works is that clearly there is a story that is being told. In these two paintings Weege is using a great deal of symbolism. I'm not so much asking Weege to explain it to me as wishing I had more knowledge about the symbolism she is using. I think the explanation in this case could come from anyone with a broad knowledge of symbolism, or at least the symbolism being employed by Weege. I still enjoy the paintings, but my understanding of them would be enhanced by this knowledge. I guess it could be up for debate if I would enjoy the paintings more with this understanding.

I feel like narrative works encourage viewers to ask for meaning because they (viewers) can recognize the objects in the painting. And unless it is a still-life, the viewer wants to know why this scene, why this composition, etc. Viewers feel like they can almost understand it, but they want some help. As evidenced by Weege's paintings, there is an enormous amount of symbolism. It's like a puzzle, and the viewer wants to solve it.

When it comes to abstract or conceptual art, the most valid explanation comes from the artist. The thing I like about abstract art is that almost any perception of the work is valid. To understand the intent of the artist, you must ask them. But I find that any number of interpretations can be valid... at least in terms of enjoying the work.

As for conceptual art, I am of the opinion that it should be mostly self-explanatory. Successful conceptual art, to me, is clear in communicating the concept. The viewer may need to ask the artist for context or why it is significant to the artist, but otherwise I feel it should be clear. I don't see how conceptual art can be any other way.

Another way for me to think about it is that a viewer can see in Butterfly Girl that the girl seems to be eating a butterfly. Why? That is the question that comes to mind. In abstract art, that first question seems to be what? What is it "supposed" to be? But viewers can try to answer this themselves. I see a flower. Or I see a dog. Or I see death. Etc. I think the ability to recognize things in narrative works provokes the questions on meaning. The viewer wants more from it. It isn't enough to see the butterfly on the plate with a fork. Why is it there?

Not sure if this answers your questions, I wrote this very fast, perhaps too fast.

[Lisa Bertnick]

JT,

I am thrilled to see you wrote about some work from the MPA show. Glad to see you also included a link to the site!

Lisa

[Anna L. Conti]

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I think you're right to separate understanding and enjoyment. They're often, but not always connected. I also agree with you on conceptual art - if it's not clear in communicating the concept to most viewers, then it fails as a work of art.

But I disagree with your view that narrative works "encourage viewers to ask for meaning" whereas, with abstract art, "almost any perception of the work is valid."

When an artist paints a narrative, using conscious or subconscious symbolic elements, it doesn't necessarily mean that the image is a map to a specific destination, or a puzzle to be solved.

To ask a representational artist "why" is like asking an abstract artist "what," and demonstrates the viewer's unwillingness or inability to explore the possibilities.

Yes, a greater knowlege of symbolic systems might assist the viewer's understanding of a painting. Likewise, more information about the artist can be useful. Jeanette Winterson, in her book "Art Objects", makes a case for "learning the language of art." she says, "Art, all art, not just painting is a foreign city, and we deceive ourselves when we we think it familiar. No one is surprised to find a foreign city follows its own customs and speaks its own language. Only a boor would ignore both and blame his defaulting on the place. Every day this happens to the artist and the art."

But, as I tried to say in my blog a couple of weeks ago (Sept. 15 & 16), you can go too far with the explanations. A pre-packaged tour of a foreign city can result in perceptions that are no more accurate than the ones gathered by the unprepared tourist who stumbles around on his own.

No matter if the painting is abstract, representational, narrative or whatever - some viewers are going to want a guided tour and some are going to go off-trail by themselves.The difference is in the viewer, not the art.

[J.T. Kirkland]

I wholeheartedly agree that the presence of symbolic elements doesn't necessarily mean the image is a map or puzzle. I never said that. All I meant was that the presence of those types of elements (intended or not, present or not) encourage the viewer to ask why. They want to understand what is there because to them there may be more to it. Take your recent painting of what appears to be a warehouse space. A viewer may be encouraged to ask what it means (your intent) because they aren't able to see anything else in it. For me, I just see a space and it looks like the focus of the piece is on the mood of the space (i.e. lighting, loneliness). But there may be more to the piece than I am getting. The only way for me to know is to ask. My interpretation is fine, and I enjoy the piece, but it may not be your intent. How should I ever know your intent?

Of course a lot of people want a quick explanation no matter what the work is. They aren't willing to give it thought. But others do give it thought and still come up empty. Instead of not knowing for the rest of their life, why not ask the artist?

You're wrong though, people asking why or what does not necessarily demonstrate an inability to explore the possibilities. It demonstrates that the viewer wants to understand the artist's intent. And this is fine. Otherwise there would be no art history classes or art books. You have to go to the source to accurately understand the artists intent. Would you say you understand my intent on every piece of art I've shown on this site? If not, does that demonstrate an inability on your part to explore the possibilities? How are you supposed to know my intent? Maybe ask me?

And I'm not sure about your foreign city analogy. If the tour is pre-packaged by the artist, how can it possibly be less accurate than the viewer just making guesses about meaning. Personally I don't always want the pre-packaged tour, but accuracy isn't the issue. Instead, I sometimes want to make up my own story because it's likely more interesting. Going back to Weege's work, it looks great to me visually, but I don't know what it means. I don't HAVE to know the meaning, but what is wrong with me asking? Asking the artist is the most accurate way to find out the intended meaning.

And I disagree, on a whim, that the difference is in the viewer, not the art. You may be right, but without empirical data we are both just guessing. I think the ability to readily recognize subject matter is a key part of the equation. Narrative works (representational) clearly have a story to tell. If the viewer doesn't get the story, or doesn't know if they get the story, they are likely to want the truth. Think about this... how many college students understand the meaning of William Faulkner's writing? I've been in many classes where students ask and ask about meaning. And students get tested on the subject matter. Writing is much less ambiguous than painting... how could there not be questions about meaning in narrative painting? Though I don't understand all of Faulkner, I still enjoyed his writing. But I didn't ace my tests. Meaning is significant!

Maybe it's just me. I rarely question abstract, non-represenational or conceptual art. I do find myself questioning representational pieces (including narratives). I guess I want more from them, or I feel more is there I'm missing.

Not everyone gets it or wants to try to get it. But I am more than happy to share my ideas with a viewer if that expands their understanding of my art, and perhaps art in general.

I think we all want answers. You read the book "Art Objects" for some reason, right? You wanted enhanced understanding of a topic. It's my stance, totally unsubstantiated, that more viewers question narrative works because they feel they can, and because they feel they need to... generally it's more accessible. If a lot of people are asking though, maybe it suggests the narrative isn't very clear. Who knows? I doubt any of us do.

[J at simpleposie]

" Narrative works (representational) clearly have a story to telI."

Hi JT,

I think it is a fundamental mistake to equate representational artwork with narrative. They are two completely separate things that interact in millions of different ways.

"You're wrong though, people asking why or what does not necessarily demonstrate an inability to explore the possibilities. It demonstrates that the viewer wants to understand the artist's intent. And this is fine. Otherwise there would be no art history classes or art books. You have to go to the source to accurately understand the artists intent. Would you say you understand my intent on every piece of art I've shown on this site? If not, does that demonstrate an inability on your part to explore the possibilities? How are you supposed to know my intent? Maybe ask me?"

And I also think you are putting a weird and final emphasis on the artist's intent. Surely you would prefer images to open up meaning rather than clamp down to the artist's intent. Surely as an artist you would prefer your work to exceed your intentions. This position undermines the authority of artworks and reduces a possibly fecund and imaginative role for the viewer as interpreter to that of reader of and believer in artist statements. The viewer may have questions but they won't be critical ones.

[J.T. Kirkland]

I don't equate narrative and representational works. Clearly not all representational works are narrative (still life for example). However, in my experience most narrative works are representational. A case could be made that all works are narratives, but for my argument I wanted to talk about narrative works that are represenational because they contain elements easily accessible by the common viewer. Easy accessibility brings up more questions on meaning... in my view.

I wouldn't say I want my work to exceed my intent. Instead I am happy if viewers find lots of meaning in my work. That's great. I believe the artist's intent is a sacred and immensely important thing. It's what separates artists from people who paint. My point was based on accuracy... accuracy of understanding the artist's intent. As a viewer I come up with tons of stories and meanings for the art I see. Just read my reviews for evidence of that. But I may ask the artist for their intent/meaning because I may not "get" it. I feel that to truly understand a work of art that context is incredibly important. It's not necessary, but for me it is valuable. Opening up meaning is great, but that doesn't get me closer to the artist. Context is important. I believe viewers should have an imagintive role in art viewing... and they should intepret for themselves. But if they want to know the artist's intent they should ask. It's like saying we shouldn't care what was in Picasso's mind, or Pollock, or van Gogh, etc. There is more to them than just the paintings. How do we get there?

A work of art is just a glimpse into the mind of the artist. I want to get into the mind. There's more there.

[J at simpleposie]

"A work of art is just a glimpse into the mind of the artist. I want to get into the mind. There's more there."

I admire your tenacity in this JT.
Let me just play devil's advocate again. If the work of art is just a glimpse into the mind of the artist and the real or ultimate pursuit - the object of "thinking about art", where does that leave the artwork? Doesn't this mode of operations, this rush for insight into the mind of the artist negate the possibility of resting with the work itself? Doesn' t it spell the end of empathy with the little dejeuner pappillon, when you've got to get back on the highway and head willy nilly toward the factory that produced it?

[Scott]

Interesting discussion. I'll throw in my two cents. I don't think it's necessary to understand the artist's intent to understand the meaning or intent of the artwork, but it can sometimes help. If you become too obsessed with it, though, I think it can hurt because often I think the artist may not themselves be aware of the intent of their artwork. In fact, I think that's probably the case with most good art.

I am a photographer, and while I don't claim to be making great art, I have noticed that my most successful pieces are those that I myself have to struggle to figure out their meaning. They resonate for me but I don't know why. That is really most of the fun of photography for me -- creating images that resonate and then, over the course of months or years, figuring out why. And my sense is that if it resonates for me, it oftens resonate for others because it touches some shared experiences or symbols.

I thus don't like talking about the intent of the artist, at least not for myself, but rather the intent of the artwork. In some sense, I believe the artwork creates itself and has its own intent, which may be very different from the intent of the artist. Knowing what the artist was trying to do may be helpful, informative, etc., but also can be very limiting and get in the way of really grappling with the intent of the artwork on its own terms.

[Anna L. Conti]

Hi JT - I think you and I are talking about the same chicken but you're thinking eggs and I'm thinking drumsticks. You make some good points and I appreciate the fact that you're continuing the dialog because this is an issue that has bothered me for awhile now, and this helps me clarify my thoughts.

Let me approach this from a different angle. I make art and I buy art. When I'm the artist, the viewer's (or anyone's) opinion of the work is secondary to my own. When I'm the viewer, the artist's (or anyone's) opinion of the work is secondary to my own.

This is because the work of art, once completed, stands and falls on its own merits. My relationship with the art depends on the time I spend with it and, like any relationship, we both contribute to the success or failure of the relationship.

As a viewer, I find some works of art to be DOA. If I can't see or feel any sign of life there, then it doesn't matter how many experts (including the artist) are willing to explain things to me, I'm moving on. I accept the fact that my refusal to invest more time and energy in this piece means I'm not going to see whatever the artist intended. But I really have no interest in a relationship with the artist, plus... Life is too short and there's plenty of live art out there.

So, moving right along, let's say that I come upon a work of art that looks like a painted piece of wood with holes drilled in it. Hmm. Well. This is certainly outside my experience of art-making. But, unlike the previous example, this one has a spark of life. I don't really get it (yet) but I'm intrigued. I want to know more. This means I'll have to spend more time with it. If it's in a museum or gallery, I'll come back a few more times to contemplate it. If things go well, I'll discover new things about it each time. I may even get to the point where I want to know as much as possible about this work of art - this is the point at which I would be interested in hearing what the artist has to say about the work. I might even be interested in hearing from an expert on this type of work. But I will consider the comments of the artist and the experts in the light of my own knowlege about this work. My knowlege has been gained at the source - the work of art.

What I don't want, as a viewer, is to be in the early stages of contemplating a work of art, and have some one else's opinions forced upon me. Like when a docent walks up next to me and starts blabbing on in a booming voice about the meaning of this work and the artist's intent. Or worse yet (and a growing trend in museums) when a photograph that is somehow related to this work of art is hung inches away from the painting.

As an artist, I come to make works of art with varying degrees of conscious and subconscious intent. Some paintings are planned years in advance, with elaborate symbolism, others happen spontaneously and mean nothing more that "look at this." Once they leave my studio, they may adopt completely different meanings, and it's fine with me. When viewers ask about the meaning or my intent in terms of a particular painting, my response depends on how much time they've spent with the painting. I've found that the majority of viewers look for about 10 seconds before they start asking questions. And it's not just my paintings - I've observed the same behavior in museums. The general public seems to have a ridiculously limited tolerance for contemplation and independent thought. With these folks, I try to encourage them to figure it out on their own.

If, on the other hand, I can see that the viewer has made a sincere effort to get into a painting and is asking a specific question (as opposed to "what's this painting about?") then I have no problem discussing it with them.

So, we agree on many things, yes? I think we disagree on the importance of the artist's intent. If I understand you correctly, you feel that knowlege of the artist's intent is essential to the viewer. I feel that the artist's intent is only significant to the artist (and possibly historians and other academics.)

(Great discussion here - I'm enjoying the comments by other readers!)

[J.T. Kirkland]

Re: J

Thanks for the compliment... I like being referred to as tenacious! And I welcome you taking the role of devil's advocate! The art work is of the utmost importance. It is the creation. It is the manifestation of an idea. For most of us, we'll never get into the mind of the artist. We'll never get to ask questions about meaning and intent. All we're left with is art... and that's not a bad thing at all!! All along I've been defending the role of the artist (his intent) as being important. Without the physical creations (paintings, sculptures, photos, etc), artists would just be junior philosophers. The art object is a unique and powerful way to communicate an idea. It is crucial or we wouldn't create it.

We must rest with the work of art. Like I said above, we most often have no other choice. But for me, I'm interested in the brilliance of the artist's mind. There are lots of pretty pictures out there... but not all are art. I put the artist on a pedestal, first I want to understand their work, then I want to understand them. I think we, as viewer, should want to get on that highway to the factory. Usually the on-ramp is closed though. And other times the viewer may not want to take the time or even need to make the trip. And this is fine too. Personally, as soon as I see an open on-ramp, I'm speeding to the highway.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Re: Scott

Thanks for chiming in Scott. I agree - it's not necessary to understand the artist's intent to understand the meaning/intent of the artwork. Through examination and careful thought you may be able to recognize it on your own. But, without asking the artist for his intent, you will never know if you are accurate. Again, I don't think this is necessarily the best or only way to go about it. Remember, I'm just talking about accuracy and not inherent importance. For accuracy's sake you must ask the artist. And this is why I will question the artist. There may be more there to enjoy and with a bit of guidance I can see it myself.

I would venture to guess that all artists are aware of their intent in making art. They did not subconsciously set out to paint something, photograph something, sculpt something. They set out in the creative process for a reason. However, as in your case, you may uncover further meaning that you captured, didn't understand then, but you do now. It's the difference between photographing a homeless man because you thought the scene and colors were interesting, versus you wanted to capture a poor man's condition and make a political comment. Either way, when the print is made and you see it years later, it may take on new significance to you. Personally, I'm interested in knowing why you snapped the picture when, where and why. That gets me in the artist's mind. Significance gained later, when it wasn't your intent, doesn't get me into the artist's mind, it gets me into your mind as viewer. Am I making the difference, to me, clear?

When you say you've struggled to figure out the meaning of your most successful pieces, this says to me that what you've done is capture a meaningful scene (almost by accident), versus creating a meaningful scene. I could randomly snap pictures blindfolded all day, everyday and eventually stumble upon a meaningful, even successful, image. But I want to know if the artist saw the meaning before or after the snap. Again, your successful photos are likely great, but asking that additional question about intent uncovers a great deal about the artist. Accidents can be wonderful... but I like to know when they happen, though it doesn't necessarily effect my enjoyment of the piece.

Artwork never creates itself, at least in my definition. That reduces the artist to a role of manufacturer and not creator. I firmly believe, and reiterate for the hundredth time, that there are many interpretations associated with art. It's ambiguous. Several interpretations can be enjoyable, successful, meaningful... but not accurate.

I don't believe artwork has intent on its own terms. Definitionally I don't think that is possible. A viewer should never limit themself to just the artist's intent or meaning. There is a ton of art that I think fails in many respects, but I can find stuff about it, perhaps completely unintended by the artist, that still affords me some enjoyment. And that is valuable... but the credit then goes to the viewer and not the artist.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Re: Anna

Thanks for writing again Anna. This is a great dialogue and you won't find this type of discussion too often. So let's keep it going.

You said, "When I'm the artist, the viewer's (or anyone's) opinion of the work is secondary to my own. When I'm the viewer, the artist's (or anyone's) opinion of the work is secondary to my own." I think this is 100% accurate and should be the case. For me, the artist's opinion is important, when I can know it, but not primarily important. I want to make that clear. I agree wholeheartedly with you.

I wouldn't always move on from DOA pieces of art. When possible, I'd ask questions, especially of the artist. I don't assume that I can see everything on my own. Occasionally the artist can contribute something significant... especially if the work or concept is new. I always talk about Pollock, but very few people understood his drip works and I'm glad some people asked him questions. Because of questions we now have a much better appreciation for him and his work.

I don't need a relationship with the artist, just a little insight. But I rarely get it, so it doesn't take up too much of my time. It's fine to refuse to invest in DOA works, but I think you should consider investing more time is great works... they could even impress you more. You agree with that, right?

Your comments on the drilled wood piece I think are ideal. Consider the work yourself, take in more information, and revel in its greatness!! Kidding! But I think you have the right approach.

Oh, and let me tell you how much I hate when docents, or another so called expert interferes with my viewing of a work. Remember, I'm focused on the input of the artist, no one else. Docents often don't have a clue, at least in my experience. And I don't want the artist to interfere with my viewing either, unless I engage them first. I often take the same approach as you. I'll return questions to them and help them learn how to think about art. I don't like to give things away too easily.

Yep, we agree on many things. I don't feel that knowledge of the artist's intent is essential. I think it is important, very important to me, and that explains why people question art. It's not essential to the enjoyment of art, but it is essential to the complete and accurate understanding of an artwork. I just don't see how it can be otherwise. The reason it is important to historians and other academics is because they want the complete view. I think it is an unlikely ideal to think all viewers will believe that, but I do personally. And to some degree, I think that is what viewers are getting at when they ask "what is this painting about." I admit, I may be giving too much credit to viewers. Most likely they are lazy and want it spoonfed to them.

I apologize for the rough reply. I was just responding to some of your comments that struck me and wrote this quickly.

[Scott]

JT,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I may have been unclear in my last post or you may just disagree with me. I can't tell, so I'll try to clarify.

My main point is that you cannot conflate the intent of the artist with the intent of the artwork. The artist may have no idea what is really going on with the artwork. He or she obviously will know what they consciously were trying to do, but I think there is so much more that goes on with a really good piece of art. I agree that you as the viewer may not be able to figure out what the artist was trying to do without asking the artist. My only point is that the artist's conscious intent may have little or no bearing on what is actually going on with the piece.

This brings up the issue of subconscious (I like to use the word "unconscious") intent. Obviously, as you say, all artists are aware of their intent in making art. They don't get up and paint or draw or photograph in some unconscious trance. But just because they know what their conscious intent is doesn't mean they know what is going on unconsciously that is really driving the artwork. I actually believe that art which is limited to an artist's conscious intent is pretty dry and lifeless. In order to get really interesting art, you have to tap into something beyond your conscious mind. I think that is what Anna means when she talks about art that is DOA versus art that has a "spark of life." Art that is created entirely (or mostly) consciously is like a toaster or a widget -- it has no life. It's just a dead object. Art that is created using both the conscious and unconscious aspects of the mind, however,is alive, is distinct from the artist, and, yes, can have it's own intent that is different from the artist's intent.

You mention that you are interested in the intent of the artist when they create the artwork, not in the meanings that come to mind many years later. I think you misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting that the meaning of the artwork changes with time. I'm suggesting that it is a puzzle that must be solved -- even to the artist -- and that may take many months or even years. So the meaning of the artwork doesn't change although the level of the artist's understanding hopefully does.

You also raise a good question about whether these things are accidental, whether the artist (photographer) "saw the meaning before or after the snap." I don't think these things are accidental. I think you see the meaning before the snap. That's why the scene interests you and resonates with you. But seeing the meaning and understanding the meaning are two different things. I believe that when a photograph, or any work of art, resonates with you, you are seeing/feeling/recognizing the meaning, but you don't really understand the meaning until you have worked with it awhile. Again, this gets back to the conscious/unconscious dichotomy. Unconsciously, you certainly recognize the meaning of the scene, but it takes some time to understand it consciously.

Finally, you say that artwork never creates itself and that believing so would reduce the artist to a mere manufacturer. I believe the opposite is true. Artwork that is created solely by the artist's conscious mind is little more than a lifeless widget, and the artist little more than a manufacturer of widgets. But an artist who can tap into the vast wellspring of the unconscious may not control every detail of the artwork, but will certainly be more than a mere manufacturer. I think they are more akin to a shaman, conjuring spirits from beyond and bringing them back for all to see.

Anyway, sorry if I got into a little too much psycho-babble or off topic, but that's how I see this whole art-making endeavor!

[J.T. Kirkland]

Hi Scott,

Thanks for the detailed response. Let me make my position clear before I dive in: I disagree with your thoughts on the unconscious aspect of art making. At a minimum, it is something that we don't actually know the answer to, but my belief is that the so-called unconscious shouldn't be a consideration. Let's get into your comments.

I believe that your unconscious position is a great theory. But my guess is that we don't have much information to substantiate it. I'd like to give more credit to the decision-making process of the artist. I'd like to believe that when I make a piece of art I understand why it will be an enjoyable piece of art. I don't like the thought of relinquishing my abilities as an artist to something I can't control or understand.

So I'd like to ask you to take your theory further. If good art is created in the unconscious, then would you say some people are born with it and others not? What effect does experience have on the success of art creation? Does years of experience only enhance the conscious side of things? If the unconscious creates a piece that is great, can we then leverage what was successful the next time consciously? Can I use a successful aspect of another artist's work in my own? What if that aspect was unconscious for the other artist? Must an idea for art be created/executed to know if it is successful? These are just a few questions I can think of that would help nail down the unconscious theory.

I have a hard time figuring out how the viewer can tell what ratio of conscious and unconscious creativity is involved in a work of art. I think you're very close to the line of a viewer's subjective reception of a work. I'm not willing to say that my unconscious mind has been involved in making my pieces of art. Does that mean they are all dry and lifeless? Or am I just stubborn and the unconscious is still involved if I like it or not. Question... any thoughts on why the unconscious gets involved sometimes and not others? Or is it always involved but our conscious mind gets in the way?

When Anna speaks of DOA art, would you say that a piece you feel is DOA is DOA for all viewers? Is a spark of life not subjective? If it is, then what does that say about the unconscious theory? Maybe your unconscious theory fits better with the viewer. A work of art is the same to me as viewer and you as viewer. But my unconscious may identify with a piece more so than yours. Consciously we are looking at the same thing, but why do I like it and you don't?

I'm concerned about my art. Pieces that I made years ago have not changed in meaning for me. I saw the meaning prior to creation, executed it, and now it exists in the physical world. It was the culmination of an idea and hasn't changed since. What does this mean?

How do you see meaning before the snap but not come to understand it until months or years later? How can you recognize meaning (see it) but not understand it? If you don't understand it, how did you recognize it? Where is the difference between recognition and understanding? You say the difference is in the conscious/unconscious dichotomy. What happens if my earlier scenario happens: I randomly snap 1000 pictures today. One of them holds meaning to the viewer but clearly my unconscious brain was not involved. Is that possible? If not, what does that say about the role of unconscious? If the unconscious isn't necessary to create "good" art, then how do we know it exists at all?

You speak a lot about "lifeless" art, as if it is inherently so. But what is lifeless to you may not be to me. Do you agree? I haven't seen a single cubist painting that has held any life whatsoever to me. But surely, for someone somewhere, a cubist painting is full of life. How can that be?

I apologize for all of the questions I've posed in this post. I think you are proposing a serious and far-reaching theory here and I'd like to hear your answers to these questions. I think we need to nail down your position to truly understand the merits. As of now it sounds more like a belief than an actuality. This definitely warrants further discussion so I hope you are willing to participate. Please note, I am not in a position to say that my theory is 100% accurate... I haven't worked out the details yet either. Maybe we can get somewhere here...

[Scott]

JT,

Wow, you've got alot of questions! I'm sure I can't answer them all, but I'll try to explain myself more fully. And thanks for clarifying that there's no misunderstanding -- you simply disagree. Hey, it's art. Reasonable people can disagree.

Let me start off by saying that I don't have any proof for my theory. All I have is my own experience. I understand that I may be making the mistake of inferring general principles from my limited experience, but all I've got to go on is my limited experience, so here goes.

I am not suggesting that good art is divorced from the artist's skills and conscious intent. Those aspects are critical. However, I think they only take you so far. They are tools that you need to hone and practice. So yes, years of practice will improve your art. But the really creative part, in my opinion, comes when you give yourself over, so to speak, to unconscious elements; when you relinquish some control and "go with the flow."

I'll give you an example of what I mean that might make it easier to understand. I don't know if you play sports, but I play a little basketball on occasion. Every now and then, I get into "the zone." I can't miss. Everything I do is right. It's as if I'm channeling Michael Jordan. Guys in the gym have a phrase for that phenomenon; they say "that guy's unconscious!"

I think that's a perfect description, and similar to what I'm talking about regarding art. Remember, the guy who's in the zone on the basketball court has not given up on all the fundamentals of basketball. He still knows how to dribble, pass, shoot, etc. It's just that he's not trying to control all of these skills with his conscious mind, which is too slow to process everything. Instead, he's shutting down his conscious mind -- not completely, of course, but to some extent -- and letting his unconscious mind control his actions to a greater degree. In other words, he's going with the flow. (Interestingly, I've noticed that I often play better when I'm feeling sick and rundown, which is counterintuitive. My theory is that I'm too tired to let my conscious mind get in the way.)

So I guess what I'm saying in a long-winded fashion is that you do not need to give up your abilities as an artist according to my theory. You still need and use all those abilities (just like the athlete "in the zone" still must dribble, pass, and shoot). You just have to rely a little more on your unconscious instincts to guide you.

You also asked whether everybody has this ability. I believe they do, that anybody can get in the art-making "zone". Obviously, some people are more technically skilled than others, and this can go a long way. Getting back to my basketball analogy, even if I'm in the zone, there's no way I'm going to beat John Stockton in a game of one-on-one. His skills trump mine. But, as I said, I think technical skill only gets you so far. Even John Stockton plays better when he's "in the zone."

I think this has gotten long enough -- bordering on a James W. Bailey response! I'll try and address the rest of your questions in a separate post.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Hi Scott,

Thanks for continuing the dialogue. And I apologize for all of the questions... it's a sickness, I know! I really like questions to assist in getting to the bottom of things.

I think you hit upon something that exemplifies the differences in our persepectives. I played baseball in college... I was a pitcher specifically. I experienced those times when I was "in the zone" too. We even called it being "unconscious." However, I looked at that as just a phrase, a descriptor, not a real thing. I view moments like that as a statistcal probability. Let me explain:

I'm sure you're familiar with the bell curve in statistics. The vast majority of games I pitched were average for me. A few times it seemed as if I couldn't throw a strike to save my life. Other times it seemed as if any ball I threw couldn't be touched. I was "en fuego!!" I don't think I was channeling Roger Clemens, I just think that the bell curve says that I'll have great days, but most will be average and some awful.

I believe the same is true for art making. At this point in time, most of the work I create is average for me. Some is absolutely awful and others are fantastic. Through years of experience and enhanced skills, my bell curve will shift more to the right... closer to great art. The better my skills, the better my art. I don't feel the unconscious is involved. I did like the analogy though - I miss my baseball days!

I know I've asked tons of questions, but I believe the biggest outstanding issues are:

1) Pieces of art that are DOA to you, but not me.
2) Conscious vs. unconscious for the viewer, not the artist.
3) Randomly snapping pictures where 1 of 1000 turns out to be great... as if the unconscious took over, but clearly it could not.

Thanks again Scott for sharing your position. This discussion has really helped me think about my thoughts. I hope others will jump in.

[Scott]

OK, I'll try to answer your other questions as best I can. You asked a good question about whether a work can be DOA for one person but not another, and I don't think I've got a good answer. I certainly think that work can resonate more with some people than with others. I guess my feeling is that good work -- work with a spark of life -- will resonate with many people because it will tap into some common symbols and experiences. But not necessarily everyone. Work that does not have a spark of life probably will resonate with few if any people, though, depending on the artist's skill, it may be admired by many.

You also asked about the difference between recognizing meaning and understanding it. In my opinion, it's easy to recognize a meaningful scene without understanding it. This oftens happens when we have an emotional response to something. Sorting out the reasons why there is an emotional response is often much more difficult than realizing we've had an emotional response. When I'm out photographing and have an emotional response to something, I click the shutter. I can figure out why later. (As a side note, maybe my theory is more applicable to photography than something like painting or drawing or sculpting. After all, an artist can spend alot more time with a painting and thus potentially work out all of these issues with meaning over the course of the painting.)

In your 1000 random picture example, I suppose it's possible to get a good, meaningful picture by accident, but I'm not sure what that proves (or disproves). Just because a million monkeys typing randomly for a million years might by chance type out Hamlet doesn't mean the monkeys are Shakespeare. Or that Shakespeare doesn't exist.

I hope I've answered at least some of your questions. Or at least clarified my thoughts. I'm looking forward to hearing your response.

[Scott]

JT,

Thanks for your comments. I hadn't seen them when I posted my second installment. And I'm glad we've found a common language. However, I should have guessed that you were a baseball player. You guys are obsessed with statistics and bell curves and that kind of thing. We obviously will never see eye-to-eye! :)

I think I've addressed your questions in my second post. Let me know if not. And thanks for the opportunity to crystallize my own thoughts on this.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Hi Scott,

Thanks for tackling some of my other questions. Let me address your response.

My point about work being DOA for some people but not others is that assigning the label of DOA is a personal/subjective decision. If I can think a work is vibrant with life, and you can think it's DOA, it says that either the piece has "unconscious" merits and you don't recognize it, or the determination of DOA could be an unconscious decision. I would guess that for every single piece of art in the world, there is at least one person who thinks it is full of life. So either every piece of art successfully tapped into the unconscious or the unconscious isn't a factor. You keyed in on something important. You said "...will tap into some common symbols and experiences." This is a conscious decision and I agree, this is what gives life to great artworks. A good artist knows what symbols or experiences to leverage in his art. He can do it uniquely and profoundly. I'm not sure if you can unconsciously tap into a symbol or an experience. I'm also not sure how you can say that a work that holds no spark of life may be admired by many depending on the artist's skill. Who's to say it doesn't have a spark of life? How many people must feel a work has a spark of life for it to actually have that spark, generally speaking?

In terms of recognizing meaning and understanding it you've changed your tune slightly and for me it makes a big difference. It seems you are equating "recognizing meaning" to "emotional response." Maybe I'm getting too involved with the words here, but I see the two as distinct. "Recognizing meaning" suggests to me that you recognize a scene that will speak to a certain idea. Examples could be homelessness, family, love, pain, etc. You can recognize that those exist in a scene and you should understand the meaning or you wouldn't have recognized the significance of homelessness, family, love, pain, etc. "Emotional response" differs for me, in terms of the artist, in that you react to something that isn't so personal... color, light, composition, etc. Certainly you can have an "emotional response" with homelessness, family, love, etc, but only after you've recognized the meaning (i.e homelessness is sad, regretful). When you take a photograph that is highly abstract or even non-representational (no "meaning" in the traditional sense), then I have no doubts the picture was snapped due to an emotional response. The point of the photo, or the most common response, will be to provoke an emotional response. We established earlier that no one walks around in an unconscious trance and snaps pictures. The act of pushing the button suggests that either you've recognized meaning in a scene (and I believe understand it), or you've had an emotional response to color, light, composition, whatever. I believe the artist is aware of these things.

Photography is often a very reactionary artistic form. Rarely does an artist fully create the scene. Usually the artist is capturing something which means that the recognition of meaning or the emotional response occurs much faster. As you said, in terms of painting, sculpting, etc, the process is much more contemplative. The decision of what to paint and what to sculpt suggests that the artist is trying to accomplish something and they are aware of how they are going to do that (intent). Further possible meanings might be seen later by the artist or viewer, but what I'm interested in is what the artist thought while they were in the creative process.

In terms of my 1000 random pictures example, the significance is that if tapping into some sort of unconscious wavelength is a requirement for making meaningful art with a spark of life, then no accident should produce meaningful art with a spark of life. If it is possible to do it without skill (blindfolded, random snaps), then surely it is possible to do it when leveraging all the skills and experiences one has. The million monkey example simply proves how incredibly brilliant Shakespeare was to produce the number of masterpieces he did in such a short time. I wouldn't say he tapped into some unconscious world to write all that he did. I'd just say he knew what he was doing and he was quite good at it!

[Theresa]

The funny thing is, JT, is that you want to know what artists "think" while they're creating and Scott is telling you what he is "thinking" and you are arguing with him.

The point is that not every artist works the same way. We don't all dissect our motivations for what we make and how we make it. And that doesn't make it more or less valuable.

Read authors' writings on writing. You will see that some go at it with a great deal of intent. Plots and subplots and characters all graphed out. While others feel they are somehow "channeling" stories that already exist. They just start with a small seed and let the story go where it wants.

This isn't just writers, it's all artists. Writers are just better at expressing it verbally. Which brings up another point. Visual artists communicate visually, so you may never get a satisfactory verbal response about why they did what they did. They may not be able to describe it in words.

"A good artist knows what symbols or experiences to leverage in his art. He can do it uniquely and profoundly. I'm not sure if you can unconsciously tap into a symbol or an experience."

You said you thought most photography was reactionary. Most photography you will see is exactly what you describe above. It is called advertising. It is manipulative. It is very well planned with a very specific intent. Does that make it art?

[J.T. Kirkland]

Hi Theresa,

Thanks for chiming in. I see where you are coming from. I'm not at all arguing with him and I think Scott would agree (or I would hope so). Through our discussion thus far we have made a great deal of progress. We are working out the details of what he thinks and what I think. He started off by saying that great art was made with the input of the unconscious mind. Then he said that he can recognize meaning but not understand it until after spending time with a piece. Finally, he said that he has an emotional response prior to taking a photo. What we're getting to is that indeed he understands the meaning of the shot prior to him snapping the shutter. I readily granted that viewers or even the artist can find additional meaning in the work later, but there was something that made the artist snap the picture. This whole discussion began with talking about a viewer asking for meaning, which I correlate to intent. To some degree I feel that there must be intent in art making. And I personally think it is valuable information to know what the artist thought prior to creation... it provides another data point for evaluating artists and art.

It should be clear that I'm not assigning value to one artist's methods versus another. I'm simply saying that I believe all artists have "intent" when they make something and it is important, to me, to know what it is. Scott has stated, more or less, that often his intent is to capture an image of a scene that he had an emotional response to. Depending on the image, this could be very important information. An artist's intent says a lot about the work, but it doesn't necessarily make it better or worse. I personally don't care if the artist dissects their motivations. However, I am interested in it and if I ask about it or if the artist offers it to me, then I will want to understand it. Again, we haven't said anything about value.

Your comparison to writing is very revealing. Although the approaches are different, do you see that both authors set out to write with a particular intent in mind? One was very methodical. He set out to write a particular story, about a particular subject, in a particular manner. The other writer set out with the intent to leverage some pre-existing writing and let his creativity create something new. Though they are different, both writers had intent. I think it is valuable information to know which writer takes which approach. Apparently the writers do too or they wouldn't write about writing.

Although we'd love to think that we "channel" something or "let the story goes where it wants" I just don't think it is possible. The writer writes the words. He chooses them. They don't write themselves. If you start with a seed, and your mind comes up with a direction to go, you CHOOSE to write it down. Art making is a series of choices. Again, it doesn't seem to be clear -- I'm not assigning value to any approach. I just ask that we be honest with ourselves about what is happening. I think knowing intent, when possible, adds more information by which a viewer can evaluate the art.

"Channeling" ideas seems to be a very romantic notion. Sure, I've gotten lots of ideas. Some were good and some were bad. "Channeling" always seems to be associated with great works and not bad. How come no one ever "channeled" bad ideas for writing? Or a bad game in basketball?

Again, I'm not looking for a "satisfactory" verbal response about why an artist did what they did. I'm just looking for any honest and accurate response. Anything gets me closer to the artist. And I dismiss the idea that an artist cannot describe their actions in words. Art making is ideas and execution. We think in words and our actions are a series of words. It could be as simple as "I took a photograph of XYZ scene." This implies a choice has been made and that the scene intrigued the artist enough to use a frame of film on it. This "intent" is quite simple, but perfectly acceptable. Another response could be "I took the photo because I wanted to show blah blah blah. I wanted to express the feeling of blah blah blah. I wanted the viewer to think about blah blah blah." This artist had more intentions, but they each had intent. I think the differences in their intentions are significant and informative. AGAIN, neither approach is necessarily better.

I'm not sure why your question "Does that make it art?" applies here. As I've stated before (my post on definition of art), I can't determine what is and is not art. So I don't know. What I do know is that intentionally using symbols or experiences is a conscious decision. If you unintentionally reference a symbol in a painting, that's fine, and it ADDS to the artist's intended meaning... but it's valuable to know that the artist didin't choose to include the symbol. They chose to include something else (a shape perhaps) that turned out to have symbolic meaning the artist was unaware of.

It's clear that I have struck a bit of chord here. I bet a lot of artists want to deny me access to the artist club although I too make art. I'm a very analytical person. I'm a numbers guy. I don't believe in channeling anything. If everyone can "channel" ideas then what makes you, me, or any other artist special? It's like saying anyone "could" be a doctor so people who are actually doctors aren't so important. Art books and degrees wouldn't exist if this subject didn't matter. I think it does... and though you may disagree, this conversation began by me saying knowledge of intent is important and to accurately understand the artist's intent, you must ask the artist. That's all.

[Scott]

JT,

I think you are pressing too much with your DOA argument. Just because there is a subjective element to people's response to a work of art doesn't mean that (a) every piece successfully taps into the unconscious or (b) the unconscious is not a factor. That's like saying because for each piece of artwork somebody somewhere will find something new and interesting, every artwork is original or originality is not a factor. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. There are other options.

I do believe there is a subjective element to people's response to artwork, even artwork that has a "spark of life." People are at different stages of their life and going through different experiences. Thus, not every piece of artwork will resonate for every person. For instance, an artwork dealing with mid-life crises may resonate strongly with people who have dealt with these issues but have little impact on teens and young adults. Thus, I don't think this subjective element presents the kind of logical problems you've identified.

Also, I don't see any problems with being able to admire a work of art that doesn't have a "spark of life." If the artist is extremely skilled, and creates extremely beautiful or technically perfect artworks, I can admire his/her skill and craftsmanship. But that doesn't mean I will be moved by it.

Finally, I have to disagree with you that I've "changed my tune" on recognizing meaning and understanding it. I have used different words to try to express what I mean more clearly but that doesn't mean I've changed my tune. The types of emotional response to color, etc. that you are talking about is not really what I mean. Maybe an example would be helpful.

When I was in college, I took a photograph of a young African-American girl sitting on a porch. It was a very bleak picture. She was sitting behind the plywood wall of the porch, so that all you could really see was her head from her upper lip up (everything from her lower lip down was behind the wall). Her eyes had an unbelievably intense, sad and frightened look. Her head was framed by a window behind her, which was broken, and the hole in the glass looked like a black dagger about to plunge into her skull. The overall structure of the picture looked somewhat like the Japanese flag.

If you asked me then why I took the picture, I would have told you that I had been shooting scattershot for many days, hadn't gotten anything interesting, and so had decided to hold my fire until something really interesting came along. When I came upon this girl, I had a very strong emotional reaction and knew that this is what I had been waiting for.

So here is an example of the artist recognizing a meaningful scene. But I can assure you, I had no idea why the scene was meaningful until many years later. Looking at the photograph without any context, one might assume that it was intended as a commentary on poverty, race relations, power and powerlessness in society or similar issues. And it probably does all of those things. But that is not why the scene was meaningful to me. It was meaningful because it reflected in uncanny detail many of the issues I had been struggling with at the time with my father. And several other of my better photographs from that period also deal with the same internal issues.

Could I have taken a good picture of the girl had I not been moved by these unconscious (at the time) forces. Probably. But I have no doubt that they simply would have been good, serviceable photographs. They would have lacked the symbolic content (wall, dagger, etc.) and power of the photo that I actually made.

Hopefully, this gives you a better idea of what I mean when I say there is a difference between recognizing a meaningful scene and understanding it.

[Scott]

JT,

You said to Theresa: "Through our discussion thus far we have made a great deal of progress. We are working out the details of what he thinks and what I think. He started off by saying that great art was made with the input of the unconscious mind. Then he said that he can recognize meaning but not understand it until after spending time with a piece. Finally, he said that he has an emotional response prior to taking a photo. What we're getting to is that indeed he understands the meaning of the shot prior to him snapping the shutter."

We may be making progress, but I'm not sure we're going in the same direction. I hope my last post has disabused you of the notion expressed in your last sentence reproduced above.