Thursday, February 9, 2012

The Artist as Reader of Art

It is of great importance to an artist to be able to engage in his or her art. For those of you who are less familiar with the term engage, this refers to an artist’s ability to verbally address or discuss his/her take(s) on the themes covered in his/her art within a contextual background.

“Why? Art’s not about talking about art.”

Really? Well, a while back I found myself in the company of a young aspiring writer. He made no secret of being an Ivy League graduate and boasted an immense air of self-importance. Come to think of it, his stare reminded me of something I recognized in photographs taken of a young and unknown Picasso. For the sake of being civil company I decided to ask him about his writing.


The young writer

“I’m writing a novel,” he proclaimed, to which I responded by asking what it is about. “It’s complicated. I guess it’s about the human condition - lots of deeply layered and moulded characters.”

Fair enough, I figured, but I remained curious and asked him about the genre.

“Oh, magical realism! Yes, this novel will extend the scope of the whole genre.”

It just so happens to be that I’m quite a fan of the works of Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Mario Vargas Llosa (two of the leading magical realist novelists), so naturally, I inquired into his favourite authors and novels within the particular genre.

“Mmmm … yeah well … you know, I try not to formulate my art on any specific author or …”

Turns out our young aspiring writer hadn’t the faintest idea of what magical realism entails as a literary construct. Needless to say, it was an earth shattering embarrassment for the poor guy and he left soon afterwards without as much as a goodbye.

If by some chance or ironic twist of fate the writer’s supposed novel was indeed nestled within magical realism, it would be by accident and he would not be able to engage with his work. He would have no reference of previous works of note, the importance of certain themes within the genre or how it has been dealt with by other authors. In short, his work will have no authority as a magical realist novel and neither will he carry any authority as a magical realist writer.


I don’t know, you know … no, I didn’t know you don’t know, but I do know now

An encounter I had with a young artist also comes to mind. I was walking through a small gallery where none of the art really stood out to me as being particularly powerful, creative or even noteworthy. There was an exception though - a semi-destroyed canvas which had been expressively abused in colourful dabs and swipes of acrylic impasto and gauzelike textures, not the kind of work I’m naturally drawn to. While trying to figure out why it intrigued me (and while pondering on which art theories would be best for analysing the work), a young man walked over and introduced himself as the artist.

We made some small talk and then I inquired into his production methods which he gladly answered by taking me through the various steps. Then I asked the artist if he would explain to me what his art’s about.

“Uh … well, I don’t know. It’s whatever you make of it, man. You know … right?”

(a) No, I don’t know. That’s why I asked.

(b) It’s not a matter of right or wrong. Either you know what the hell you’re doing or you don’t.

(c) Regardless of theories and sentiments concerning the value of the viewer’s experience of art, if your art doesn’t convey its concept by itself, then you, the artist, won’t be establishing any credibility for yourself as a professional by being/appearing unable to engage in your art.

This is a case where I would have valued the work of art much more had I not met the artist who in turn didn’t know anything in terms of artist-object-viewer theories either. In the end I deduced he made it in the manner he did purely because that was how his art could look heavy cool. In turn his inability to engage in his art unmasked him as a fake to his audience.


Engage in your art

So let me ask you, as an artist, how much do you know about semiotics, structuralism and post-structuralism? How about Neo-Marxism or postcolonial theory? Any ideas on art and psychoanalysis, feminism, lesbian and gay theories? Iconography or deconstructivism anyone?

Which of these theories bare more relevance to your work? If you’re struggling with answers to these, you may want to start googling and reading up a bit. These are but a few art theories which are of relevance today or at least have been relevant over the past century. It is bound to get even more complex and sub branched as we march into the 21st century.

As an artist it is important that you can explain your work and have a knowledgeable grasp of the theoretical context it is situated in. From an art historical perspective, this is by no means a new phenomenon, something I will address in the next article.

This ability to engage in one’s art comes down to the artist being a reader of art. It comes down to the artist being able to interpret his or her own work, from its choice of media down to all its themes and references, within a contextual background. This ability will give you a greater understanding of your work; it will give you a greater sense of direction in your work; and, it can guide you towards producing a truly meaningful contribution to the world of art. In turn, if you manage this well, it will greatly assist your art in establishing you as an authoritative artist within your field.


2012 © CF PRETORIUS