Art
A knot that ties up the loose ends of reality. Great art collects numerous strands of profundity and weaves them into an endless cord.
Discussions about art reliably produce two disagreements. One is about its status, the other, its purpose. While these may begin as distinct conversations, they have a way of becoming intertwined. If the status of art is compromised, then it will be incapable of fulfilling its purpose. On the other hand, if there are doubts about the purpose or value of art, then its status as a relevant aspect of human life cannot be effectively ascertained.
When engineering a conversation about abstract concepts, it is generally prudent to establish the nature of something and then move on from there. Failing to clearly define a concept or term is certain to inhibit the utility of any discussions that follow from its introduction; it is a romantic waste of time. The peculiar thing about art is its tendency to include attempts at clarifying it as part of its definition. Ideas and expressions can be artful, and we are likely to prefer elaborations that evoke a sense of awe or profundity when someone is trying to untangle the nature of art. Are carefully crafted and poignant definitions accurate just because they elicit an emotional response? Our reactions say far more about us than the stimulus itself.
This is why reflections on the nature of art often conclude with an admission of humble defeat. Who is to say what art is? We are then left mired in the hopeful assumption that when we discuss art, our audience shares our views. Even this is somewhat artful, and so the endless cord of art is apparent by a mere utterance of its name. It is in this strange and wonderful way that art binds us together, a rope tethering us to a profoundly inexplicable reality. We tie our knots along the cord as markers, hoping it will guide us to truths that reason alone fails to provide.
In a sense, art is indistinguishable from freedom, because although we may struggle to contain its nature with words, when art is placed in a box, we immediately find it unsatisfying. There is something to the idea that when restrictions are imposed on art, it is no longer art, it becomes something else entirely. Limitations on the technique or medium can serve as welcome challenges to an artist, but to parameterize its expression formally depletes it. This has been attempted by every Western culture as far back as we are aware. A government or regulator will insist that there should be approved forms of art, and if an industry is interested in earning less revenue, they can adopt a similar ethos. This is because ordinary citizens already endure enough limitations in every facet of their lives, and so it is imperative that their art and entertainment remain free from the imposition of social engineers. When art insists on a political message, it has become propaganda, a medium that is void of artistic merit. Propaganda is anti-art, confined, deliberate and strategic. It does not invite expression or engagement - it demands obedience.
With respect to the purpose of art, Dr. Cesar A. Cruz posited that art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable. While this may not be the most widely held belief about the purpose or function of art, he is certainly on to something. When confronted with existential dread, many things are on offer that comfort the soul. Art can be one of these things, but it is not uniquely positioned to offer such consolation. The capacity for art to disrupt the status quo is a better angle to shoot.
It is rare for us to actively pursue discomfort, and when we do, it does not typically involve art or entertainment. We want to enjoy our downtime. We do not want to be disturbed, lectured, targeted, violated, or made uneasy. We get enough of that in life already. As a result, the vast majority of distractions we seek out generate emotions contrary to the aforementioned. We want to be comforted, validated, inspired, supported, and feel like everything is fine. Art is uniquely positioned to blur these lines.
Great art, in particular, combines both the disturbing and comforting aspects of reality into an alchemical product that leave a haunting impression in our minds, and often, we savour the unrest it stirs in us. The disturbing capacity of art alone does not classify it as worthy of attention. The majority of modern art is thinly veiled ACTIVISM, designed to raise awareness about issues that are already known by everyone, and imagined as novel by the artist. Art can be political to be sure, but if its wholly political, then it is far better consumed as propaganda. In such situations, it would be prudent to clarify if the piece is using art to convey a political message, or is it art that contains political undertones but is ultimately redeeming relative to human interests. Is the purpose of the piece the art or the political message?
Once we have a functional idea of the answer, we can then comment on whether art is alive or dead. Art exists in a state of perpetual reincarnation, so it is never alive or dead forever, but we can determine its health by extrapolating on the art that is prominently available at a given time. Once this task is accomplished, we will be in a much better position to argue its status.
Well then, is art dead? You tell me.
Posted: 30 Dec 2022
