Meaning in Art is Bad?

I'm a huge fan of Franklin Einspruch's Web site, Artblog.net. I think he does a fantastic job discussing art and although it is focused on Miami, his discussions resonate on a national level. However, there has been some things posted there recently that bother me. I'd like to discuss them here and I hope I represent the ideas posted on Artblog.net accurately.

It all started with this post (see above image). The press release for the show in which Naomi Fisher's photograph hangs, states:

In "Untitled (Ocean)" a lone female figure rises from the sea like an ancient creature, her back and breast blending into the darkening dusk while her raised machete gleams from the last light of the day. It is a mournfully triumphant image, romantic in the wake of pre-Raphaelite paintings, and glamorously gory battle scenes. The power of the image is that her gesture embodies all women, from mythical goddess to cast out whore. Like a reversed Ophelia she rises from the sea to battle an empty horizon, acting out a hybrid role of women as portrayed throughout art history: from winged Victory leading battles; Salome crying for the head of John the Baptist; channeling Medusa in her snake-like hair; Judith with her heavy sword raised; Venus birthing from the sea; to the Sirens leading sailors astray...

Granted, this is likely a load of crap... a big load of crap. A few days later, the topic of meaning in art popped up. Specifically, see this post (see image above). This image is a detail shot of a very large "paintant" that is hanging at the Miami Art Museum. Franklin is critical of the work and he eloquently states what faults he finds in the piece. This is fine and dandy. Among the 70 comments associated with the post, were the following comments... forming an interesting dialogue:

Kitty: Upon entering the space and without reading any previous notes, I started on the right side of the room (which I thought was the beginning) and slowly followed the wall until I came to the end. I kept thinking of the cycle of life. In the beginning there is a void then light, life. I saw the morphed body parts as representing this complicated mess (and joy) of humanity and ALL that's associated with it. How we are absorbed with ourselves (our bodies) and one another (other peoples bodies) with all the little sprinklings our existence (various commercial/cartoon/technology images) along the way. This goes on for some time and then all of a sudden blackness. Thick and heavy. Death and then back to the void.

Oldpro: Kitty: many years ago (almost 40) an art writer I know had this to say about art that flaunted "meaning":

"These...styles (contain) emotional signals, directives to react to and think of the work in a manner leading to verbalization. Rather than art, they are a set of clues leading to talk."

When you fall for it, the art disappears. That is, if there is any art there in the first place.

Alesh: Oldpro~

It's true: in the mid-20th century, the art world had a major flirtation with pure formalism . . . AbEx, and all that .

I thought most of us had left that behind, though, and realized that both form and meaning, and how they releate to each other, go into makind an artwork succeed?

Oldpro: This has nothing to do with "pure" anything, Alesh. All meaning is drawn from form of some kind. I am merely saying that if a work of art says "think about (whatever)" it is directing you away from itself to something you alreay know about. You don't need art for that.

Alesh: Oldpro~

I don't understand. It seems that art originates with an idea/feeling in the artist, and succeeds to the extent that it evokes an idea/feeling (not necessarily the same one) in the viewer. This seems no less true for Cezanne then for Hirst. It seems only a little less true for someone like Frankenthaller. Today's world is more media-saturated then that of the past, so references to popular culture are more prevalent in today's art; i don't see that as something to hold against the artists.

Alright... still with me? I hope so. Now, let's look at today's post. In this post, Franklin is discussing the Matisse shown above... and the post is titled Thinking and Not Thinking. I want to pull out a few of Franklin's comments (note: you should read his entire post... I pulled out the comments I found most interesting):

Yes, it was a Matisse. I looked at that brave black expanse of the mirror, the stems of the anemones snaking around. I muttered something about how beautiful it was. For a short while the nuttiness of Art Basel was cut away from my awareness, as if with a sharp sword.

Great art stops thinking.

You can think about art, of course, and people do, self included.

This tells me mostly that Kitty [in reference to Kitty's comment above] has a great imagination and that she's probably a blast to hang out with. But I'd bet that we could put Kitty in front of just about anything, art or not, and she could riff on it like this. Marcaccio's painting needs viewers like Kitty to make it happen - viewers that parse the sensory data into meaningful chunks even if the work doesn't function aesthetically.

Certain viewers take this riffing to an absurd conclusion, and attribute all kinds of associations to objects that hold little weight either aesthetically or symbolically. We saw this recently in the press release for Naomi Fisher's machete-weilding photograph, which I won't quote again except to say that "reversed Ophelia" still gives me a chuckle. ("Um, by reversed, do you mean, like, unkilled?")

... the ensuing argument still holds: depending wholly on the viewer to supply the meaning is a crutch that I was seeing too often three years ago.

Filling in the blanks for art doesn't work because great art stops thinking. Lesser art causes thinking to spin, sometimes in a deliberate attempt to approximate the prolonged engagement that great art inspires. That may constitute some kind of test for art - the extent to which it first evokes pleasurable grunts, moans, sighs, and expletives, rather than discussion and analysis.

OK, I have a problem with this line of thinking. If you know me at all through this site, you'll be prepared for me to talk about this in an almost line by line manner. Let's get started:

Oldpro stated, "All meaning is drawn from form of some kind. I am merely saying that if a work of art says "think about (whatever)" it is directing you away from itself to something you alreay know about. You don't need art for that." My response is this:

All meaning is drawn from form.
All art is form.
Therefore, all meaning is drawn from art.

If meaning is drawn from art, then how can you not think about meaning when looking at art. Very rarely is art something other than an idea. Even the Matisse above is an idea of a vase of flowers in a particular setting... as I'm sure that the scene did not look exactly as Mattise depicted it. This is the most simple view. More complicated is Matisse's intent. Do we think that he wanted viewers to think about some grand meaning in the painting? I doubt it. I think his intent was beauty. And for Franklin, he acheived it. For me, it doesn't do much for me. So is the painting "great." Based on a small sampling of 2 people, it appears that Matisse receives the grade of F for beauty. Is it great? Is it great because it doesn't provoke thought when that wasn't even the intent of the artist? Let's move on...

Franklin stated, "Yes, it was a Matisse. I looked at that brave black expanse of the mirror, the stems of the anemones snaking around. I muttered something about how beautiful it was. For a short while the nuttiness of Art Basel was cut away from my awareness, as if with a sharp sword.

Great art stops thinking.

You can think about art, of course, and people do, self included."

I'm glad that Franklin feels the painting is beautiful. But to me, that says nothing more than Franklin thinks the painting is beautiful. How could it say more? Franklin proceeds to say that, "Great art stops thinking." First, I don't think we can say with any certainty what art is great. Because Franklin's mind went blank when he viewed it, doesn't make the painting Great... it merely makes it great to Franklin. Again, the intent of the painting is to acheive beauty... not spark some great debate. I don't know this for certain, admittedly, because we'd have to ask Matisse about his intentions. I find it funny that almost in passing Franklin says that "you can think about art, of course..." I'm glad to know that my site isn't a complete waste of time!!

In talking about beauty, I'd like to say that I think orchids are extremely beautiful. Many, many people would agree with me. And I don't think much about them really... I just appreciate them. So, are orchids great pieces of art?

Franklin goes on to say, "But I'd bet that we could put Kitty in front of just about anything, art or not, and she could riff on it like this. Marcaccio's painting needs viewers like Kitty to make it happen - viewers that parse the sensory data into meaningful chunks even if the work doesn't function aesthetically."

So what if Kitty could riff on anything? This doesn't mean anything in and of itself. We could all riff on anything. But, if Marcaccio's intent in making his art is to provoke the exact thoughts that Kitty expressed, then hasn't he succeeded? If this were the case, then perhaps the doubters have it wrong. Of course, Marcaccio's intent could be to make some object that has no meaning or beauty and is only meant to be displayed in a museum and hopefully make him a lot of money. I don't know which way it really is, and I doubt Franklin or his readers know. And finally, how does Franklin know the work "doesn't function aesthetically"? Maybe he can't see the beauty...

Franklin goes on to say, "Certain viewers take this riffing to an absurd conclusion, and attribute all kinds of associations to objects that hold little weight either aesthetically or symbolically."

This is undoubtedly true. However, I'd venture a guess that we rarely know exactly when this occurs. If a viewer has a reaction, or sees something in the work that speaks to them, and it is true to them, then what is wrong with this? The Naomi Fisher press release is likely fluff to encourage visitors and potential buyers to come to the gallery. I find fault with that. But if a viewer has the same reaction and it's sincere, then more power to them. We'll all see different things in art. But, it would be even better if this were Naomi's intent. The work has value because it speaks to someone, but I'd like for more people to recognize Naomi's intent... whatever that is. If her intent is being recognized, I'd suggest that the piece is weak. But riffing isn't inherently bad... to say otherwise seems elitist to me.

Franklin then states, "... the ensuing argument still holds: depending wholly on the viewer to supply the meaning is a crutch that I was seeing too often three years ago." How do we know if the artist or art depends wholly on the viewer to supply meaning? What if the so-called supplied meaning is exactly the intended meaning of the artist? Franklin and some others seem to be saying that art shouldn't be about an idea or specific meaning. I just don't buy it... I don't know how you can avoid it.

Finally, Franklin says, "That may constitute some kind of test for art - the extent to which it first evokes pleasurable grunts, moans, sighs, and expletives, rather than discussion and analysis." I'll buy this to an extent. But, he implies that there is something wrong with art that provokes discussion. What if the piece is not meant to be beautiful? It is only meant to inspire thought and discussion. Would we say it isn't art? Must art strive to be beautiful? Would we say that the piece cannot be great? Personally I think art can be great (in my opinion) only if it has some amount of thought associated with it. I can find beauty in nature... but what elevates art is that there is an idea behind it. There is something to think about. Beauty enhances that.

I want to bring back up something Oldpro said, "I am merely saying that if a work of art says "think about (whatever)" it is directing you away from itself to something you already know about. You don't need art for that." What exactly do we need art for? I want to see a piece of art that isn't about something we already know about. Show me an art object that is foreign to me. The Matisse painting above isn't foreign... I already know about flowers, vases, etc.

Man, what a long post. In my art, I intend to make visually appealing objects. But I only consider myself successful when it provokes further thought. I can find beauty in lots of places... I can't find things that provoke thought. I hope my art isn't a waste of time because I want my work to inspire people who aren't thinking anyways. Franklin wants to stop thinking... I want people to start thinking.

Comments

[Todd W.]

"All meaning is drawn from form.
All art is form.
Therefore, all meaning is drawn from art."

I'm not entirely sure I catch your drift here, but this is a logical fallacy. Just because "All art is form" does not mean "All form is art" which is what would have to be true to say that all "meaning is drawn from art." There also may be other non-art things which are form and which meaning can be drawn from. And it does not mean that all forms can create meaning.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Sure, there can be other things that are form other than art. But my premise is that all art is form. So, the extension would be that all meaning is drawn from art (plus other things that are form). My thought was that someone was saying that art was not form, and I don't believe that to be the case.

My philosophical reasoning is rusty... so I may not have put the logic together properly. But I hope my idea still gets across. I want to see a piece of art that has no meaning. I'm not sure that exists.

[Franklin]

Tomorrow's Artblog.net post responds, and I think the honker is even longer than this one... Thank you. I am enjoying this interaction.

[wwc]

Too often in contemporary work I've seen stuff seemingly ready-made for inflation by the kind of art-writing Franklin seems to argue against. Sometimes I feel like visual culture is in bondage to verbal culture, esp when in museum after museum one sees stuff that desperately needs it's wall text. Like the gatekeepers of art aren't trained to look, but to look and spin and riff.

I don't know how, but that Matisse, even in a tiny online reproduction, is fascinating and bewildering. It defies any box art-talk might put on it, whereas the photo above seems to puny for the grandiose words spun around it.

Oh, and a minor point from the post on Franklin's blog - ABEX wasn't pure formalism at all.

[Joseph Barbaccia]

I assume we're talking about the visual arts and also assume that we're talking about art "objects". By "form" do you mean "matter"? "Substance"? Music is an art we can appreciate without form. Although during it's manifestation it can have structure; i.e. musical scores. Dance is a visual art that has form, but only for a certain short duration. It's form is transient compared to the, say 1000 years a painting might exist.

What do you think of cinema? Is that light coming from the screen, "form"? Surely the storage device for digital cinema is not the intended art"form".

I agree that all art objects have meaning. It's placed there by the creator and translated/filtered by the viewer.

I'll guess that even purposeful "meaninglessness" has meaning in a larger context. You just have to go back 80 years to DaDa for that. Perhaps AbEx paintings were a type of art whose meaning was initially intentionally undefined. But even the AbEx painters believed their work carried unconscious meaning.

[James W. Bailey]

Dear Joseph and J.T.,

First, Joseph, beautiful Word Project post! You should copyright that my friend because it's sheer poetry.

Second, J.T., this current dialogue is bound to sooner or later bring up the subject of Clive Bell and his seminal, and many would argue, long discredited book, Art.

Lenny, where are you? Weigh in on this!

There seems to be the developing aesthetic undercurrent between J.T. and Franklin that is threatening to overflow the banks of the levee and flood the low lying areas with Formalism. I’m watching the Weather Channel very closely today!

I am also working in the real world this week and wish I had the time to wade into this Formalism vs. Conceptualism vs. all other theories of art with a position paper!

J.T., if you will be patient with me, I would like to try to write such a piece. No promises on how many words this time!

My car-jacked victim theory of art for the moment, in consideration of my time constraints, is this: If forced to confess a single recognized art theory from the official canon in order to preserve my life, I would go with Conceptualism; mostly for two reasons:

1.) Conceptualism really seems to piss-off the Artfanistas, art scribes, traditionalists, representationalists, realists and others who pine for the lost days of “real” art created by “real” artists. I’m of the idea that a pissed-off traditionalist artist has a better shot at creating an art masterpiece, as opposed to a placid, languid and content traditionalist artist, so, in an effort to inspire the traditionalists, I say bring on the Conceptualism!

2.) Conceptualism provided the intellectual platform for art to finally escape (unfortunately, to a very limited degree) from the doctrinal Artfanistas who rule the world of high art, as detailed in my recent post on J.T.’s site “Good Art and Context”. Conceptualism laid the ground work for Littoral Art. Littoral Art practices and concepts provide a platform for art becoming actively engaged in changing the world. I owe my artistic soul to this concept of art. Indeed, ANTI-OPTIONS 05 is a perfect example of a Littoral Art Project seeking to restructure an existing matrix, not by process of simplistic and narcissistic political protest, but through actively engaging regulatory authorities to hold the WPA/Corcoran Association and the Board of Trustees of the Corcoran Gallery of Art accountable for their actions and to the law. I wrote J.T. earlier and told him that perhaps in the earlier days of Conceptualism, ANTI-OPTIONS 05 would have involved me standing in front of the Corcoran Gallery of Art with a bag over my head holding up a protest sign. 15 minutes of fame and nothing would have changed. Not Today. Littoral Art will constructively work to really change things by actively involving principal parties to hold institutions they regulate to higher standards of accountability.

Joseph, I think your post has opened the door for all to admit to and come clean with their various Formalist theories, if they indeed hold them.

J.T, I think this dialogue has the potential to really engage some strongly divergent points of view about art theory without devolving into an art history or art theory class, or conjuring the ghost of Clive Bell!

Lenny, where are you?!

Sincerely,

James W. Bailey

[Tyler]

I think the (logically) correct syllogism would be--

All meaning is drawn from form.
All art is form.
Therefore, meaning is drawn from all art.

I guess that math degree is finally paying off...

[James W. Bailey]

Damn, Tyler, quite showing off with your advanced math degree!

Here's the only art math forumla I know (Unfortunately, I went to grade and high school in Mississippi!):

ART = CAPITAL by Joseph Beuys.

Cheers!

James W. Bailey

P.S. I also studied a little art philosophy during my formative in the Magnolia state, to wit: "To make people free is the aim of art, therefore art for me is the science of freedom." -Joseph Beuys

P.P.S I'm finding the good ole boys over at Artblog.com a little light in the humor appreciation department. I do mean this post with humor, Tyler, although I think the readers of J.T.'s site know that by now. Can't we all just put a little more humor back into art?!

[J.T. Kirkland]

Thanks Tyler. That gets my idea across better... and all you did was remove an "all." Logical reasoning can be a tricky endeavor.

[Franklin]

It's true - Artblog.net readers are out for blood. This may have something to do with a certain strident attitude that its author employed in its early days and is trying to cut down on. Actually, we have some pretty goofy moments over there - the Official Art Criticism Badge, the one where everybody had to make their comments rhyme, well, you get the idea. You're welcome to come down any time.