Artistic Dialogue
Last updated on Apr 27th, 2008 • Categorized in: Art TalkMost artists are drawn to a particular medium because of its ability to express certain thoughts, ideas, or emotions. For instance, a painter may choose to paint because of the expressive possibilities associated with the medium. She may express herself through paint, and not through the written word, because of the unique expressive capacities associated with the former. But if this is true, then what is the purpose of a dialogue or discussion about a particular work of art?
If a person wanted to express herself verbally, then she would. But if she wants to express herself visually, why shouldn’t her work end here? Why should she have to discuss her art—its meaning, message, or significance? We can say something similar about those who view art: When a person walks into a gallery, or pages through an art book, why should he attempt to say something about the art? Why shouldn’t he simply look at the art? Isn’t this—the looking— the whole point? And do we not limit or alter a piece when we try to express its meaning or significance in words?
A related worry that we might have about art concerns our tendency to confabulate or develop ‘stories’ about what we do or create. When an artist reveals the ‘meaning’ of her art, can we trust her? Is she being sincere? Or is she mistaken or self-deceived about her work and its significance? How can an artist ever be sure that the thoughts that occurred to her during the creative process caused or motivated the process and the product? Perhaps the thoughts and feelings that she experienced at the time merely accompanied the process and were causally inert.
Is this skepticism about artistic dialogue in order? Why or why not? If it so, might we still want to say something in support of discussions about particular works of art? What is their function? Please share your thoughts with us below.
You know, I have one mouth. Two ears. Two eyes. Fingers, toes… 10 of these. I sing, laugh, argue, console. I write, type, point, gesture. I hear, calculate, observe, receive, discern.
But I don’t just draw.
I think art is to look at. If you like it say so. If you don’t, try to be polite about it. I try to keep my work realistic. Every one has their own style and techneque. Not every one likes every ones art. Some that I don’t understand I research. I am trying to expand my thinking and reasoning for what art is and should be or represent. Does it represent what we feel, who we are or what we see. I try not to get technacle about some art. It is what it is. Enjoy it for what it is. Thanks Barb
Hi!
Isnt it about interpretation?A painting may say one thing to you one day and something else next time you look at it ? Depending on how you are feeling, what light you see it in, how you came upon it.
Lee
PS Great site!
There’s a great scene in “Wolf at the Door” in which Paul Gauguin (played by Donald Sutherland) addresses this very question during an exhibition of his work. It’s brief and very much to the point, but I still think of it sixteen or seventeen years later.
From my point of view (for what it’s worth), I paint “That Which Cannot Be Expressed By Mere Words.” I aim for the Transcendant, along the lines of, say, Mark Rothko…which is why, sadly, I find so much of the painting being created during my lifetime so silly and pointless.
Viewing art is one thing, reflecting on the message is another, if the sole purpose of an expression is to communicate, why not be willing to speak for your work or represent your thought; Is not the whole point of art exhibition to share your views or is it good enough to just exist and have others speak for you. Art is all there is, but when it has a voice its special ..that is why its valuable.
By the way, you have the right to remain silent.