To some extent all artists ask the viewer to do some work to find the reward that perhaps can be found when looking at a piece of art. With some pieces of art the reward is more immediate and easily found (just look at a pretty Monet, for example). Others are much more difficult (such as Rauschenberg's combines). Tyler touches on both of these today.
In a short review of the Combines, he states:
Robert Rauschenberg's combines are not, to use Marcel Duchamp's term, retinal. The eye isn't seduced by them, the way it is by, say Monet. They require a little bit of work. You must invest time into looking at them and then hope for a reward.
This seems like common sense to art viewers, right? But I wonder if artists understand this as well. Do artists operate under the assumption that all viewers are willing to work to find the reward that may or may not be hidden in the art?

(Do we really want to look at this?)
Did Rauschenberg understand that by making such "difficult" work that some percentage of his viewers would never invest the time it would take to "get it"? Or did he have a sort of egotistical approach and think that if a viewer does not invest time in his art they are unworthy of it anyway?
This is something I've struggled with. I've admitted to the fact that I'd rather undergo a root canal than to look at Cubism. The same goes for many of Rauschenberg's combines. I appreciate the significance of both (I loved reading Tompkin's biography of Rauschenberg) but I just don't want to look at it. And given our finite time on Earth, why not pass it by and go see something more immediately rewarding?
The argument can be made that the reward of Rauschenberg is so great that it is worth the time. Perhaps. But you have to get over that initial hump. It's a tough hump. I expect to face the same thing when I see the Whitney Biennial next weekend. I can see the visit lasting 30 minutes or 3 hours. We'll see!
In my own work, I've decided up to this point to not make it require a lot of work to "get." However, I've tried to build in subtle things that will reward a viewer who looks longer and who wishes to think as well as look. I'd rather not exclude a percentage of potential viewers from engaging with the work. I want to bring as many people in as possible.
It can be done both ways obviously. I'm just curious if artists truly appreciate the fact that the tougher the work, the smaller the audience.
Thoughts?



Recent Comments