Art and Politics, Part 1: The Deafening Silence

I’ve noticed during the nearly three years I’ve been blogging for Brainstorm that whenever I blog on art, the reaction is deafening silence. When I blog on politics, on the other hand, people are at the ready with their opinions. Here’s the first of two posts on the why these two very different subjects, both of which are arenas in which people readily form opinions, cause such different reactions when it comes to taking a public stand.

Unlike words, or mathematical formulae, or scientific studies, most art automatically prompts one of three reactions: I like it, I don’t like it, or I’m indifferent to it. While people concede to art historians—and even artists—special knowledge about the who, what, when, where and how of art, they don’t accord them special privileges in the opinion area. Most people firmly believe that art is a subjective matter, and that all opinions about it are therefore equally valid.

A lot of people can’t understand how art of any kind conveys meaning. At its best, it seems to sit there, or hang there, waiting to be contemplated for some sort of aesthetic pleasure. What else is there to say about it? At the same time, many are terribly intimidated by art—especially modern and contemporary art. They find they don’t like it, but worse, they’re annoyed that they don't “get” it. It seems as if it’s part of a club they aren’t allowed to join. Tethered as they are to their preconceived ideas about what a painting should do (it should be beautiful, or at least good-looking, or it should tell a story, or be noble, or be about flowers, or the Bible), a lot of people think modern and contemporary art is nothing but one enormous joke. Since this is hardly the kind of thing sophisticated people want to admit, they prefer to keep quiet about the subject.

For aesthetic taste to broaden generally requires a lot of serious, direct experience with art—lots of time hanging around museums, galleries and artists’ studios. It helps to read about art, or listen and talk to people who love it, or are at least involved in it. Yet even then, and even among the educated elite, only a relatively small group of people do any of these things on any kind of regular basis. People in the humanities (where you’d think you’d find a lot of people who pay attention to art) are frequently just as alienated, flummoxed or indifferent to art as the masses that are obsessed with pop culture. The stock and trade of academics is words, not images, and for all their ability to analyze culture, academics are mostly blissfully ignorant of what it takes to make something that becomes a part of culture—a work of art, or a product of scientific inquiry and experiment. For all their study of ideas and actions (artistic or otherwise), and all their inventing of explanations and theories about what creative people do, in both art and science, they rarely ever try their hands at creative work. When was the last time you heard of a Shakespeare scholar trying to write a play, or an art historian trying to paint a picture?

For 15 years, my husband was the art critic for Newsweek. He’s told me that it wasn’t a personal thing, but what he wrote for the magazine didn’t matter much to the editors there. They hired him because they thought art was “important” and that it needed to be covered (after all, MOMA and the Metropolitan Museum of Art were right next door). They never really knew what to make of art, and turned to my husband as the initiate who could help them get a handle on its meaning—especially the unfathomable meaning of modern and contemporary art.

In sum, even though almost everyone reacts to works of art almost instantaneously, and even though most people, either consciously or unconsciously, ascribe to the principle that all judgments about art are by nature equal, almost everyone is insecure about their art judgments. Even those who enjoy strolling through museums and galleries, or reading about art, or even meeting and talking to artists, would rather not discuss their opinions about art in a public forum.

Next time: Why we proffer our political opinions much more readily than our opinions about art.

E-mail

Comments

1. geneseo - August 27, 2010 at 06:33 am

Well, given that modern art and contemporary art are about themselves, it's not surprising that people feel that they are out of the loop of the joke. They are.

2. janesdaughter - August 27, 2010 at 07:37 am

Could the silence have something to do with the value (as in social, not market) that we attribute to art? Perhaps I love museums but I stay quiet because I don't want to argue with the person who is jobless or homeless that we need art most of all in stressful times. It seems that the people who believe the National Endowment is a waste of taxpayers' money are not shy about voicing their opinions, but then we are sliding into the political realm.

3. 11159859 - August 27, 2010 at 09:27 am

I don't know what there is to say about art. Anything said about a work of art is what that work of art is not. What justifies the existence of a visual work of art is that it says something words can not. If it could it would be an essay, or a poem, or a novel.

Eloquence about art leaves the mystery untouched. When I am instructed about a painting or a sculpture, I am not sure whether
I am reacting to the words or to the work.

4. drtoc - August 27, 2010 at 10:27 am

What an excellent description of my delimma in appreciating art. I hoped as I read to find a solution to this problem with which I have struggled. But I find only plans for discussing political opinions. Please consider giving advice for those of us who, even after trying, are insecure and would appreciate a bit of direction.

5. dank48 - August 27, 2010 at 10:27 am

Being a sort of bush-league Salieri (the Amadeus one, not the real one), lacking only skill, ability, and talent, I at least understand how hard it is to produce art, or anything that could conceivably be considered art. If I look at a painting and realize I could do that, then it's probably not art. If I couldn't, it probably is.

This is no basis for pretense to expertise.

One thing about art is art criticism, which in some cases approaches an art form itself--I'm thinking of Kenneth Clark and Robert Hughes--which at its best enlightens, educates, and heightens our appreciation of art. More often, it seems to go the way of most criticism, less about art (music, theater, opera, film, literature) than about scoring intangible points in some Glass Bead Game. And there is often more than a whiff of the cliched "frustrated artist (musician, playwright, singer, actor, author) as critic." Bile is a poor appetizer.

While it may be true to some extent that "Most people firmly believe that art is a subjective matter, and that all opinions about it are therefore equally valid," there remains the concrete, objective work of art itself. How is the viewer to react to it, to make sense of it, without guidance? "A poem should not mean, but be" is true enough, and the same goes for painting, no doubt, but this remains somehow unsatisfying. When we fail to connect with a piece of art, is the fault in the artist or in us? Perhaps our silence signifies nothing more than humility (real or feigned) in the face of what we feel we don't understand. Not to mention our fear (unfeigned) of seeming ignorant, foolish, or uncivilized.

Somewhere between unthinking acceptance of the judgment(s) of the annointed priesthood and "I don't know anything about art but I know what I like" is a reasonable approach to art. Finding it isn't easy, but then, neither is creating art.

6. andrew0261 - August 27, 2010 at 11:12 am

Thank you, Laurie, for your usual thoughtful commentary... Of course, you're correct in stating that things would be different if we "exposed" ourselves more to Museums, etc, however, I wonder what it says about us, qua society, that we cannot appreciate our own art. I mean, doesn't Art reflect the Society and Times they are in? A Muslim culture will create the beauty that one witnesses in Southern Spain or Northern Africa. 20th Century Art reflects the anguish of two World Wars, etc. Are we just afraid to face ourselves by not daring to interact with our Art? Just some random thoughts, I guess! Look fwd. to next installment!

7. _perplexed_ - August 27, 2010 at 11:40 am

I have trouble with one of the post's premises: I do not "readily" form any opinion about art. Not always, but most often, I am indifferent. And I certainly don't think all opinions about art are equally valid. Mine, for example, are rarely of any value to anyone but me. Perhaps many folks feel the same way, and so the low level of response to posts about art. And nonresponse does not necessarily signify lack of interest in the post.

8. clandesm - August 27, 2010 at 12:34 pm

My father was a painter (athough he did not make a living selling his canvasses). He very much ascribed to the view expressed by 11159859: what is communicated visually cannot be expressed in words, otherwise it would have been expressed with words from the start.

I don't entirely accept this arguement. I have benefitted not only from looking at works of art, but also reading and thinking about them. Thinking about art is not worthless and it is done by thinking in words, at least in part.

The experience of art is informed by an enormous amount of background knowledge. Much of that knowledg is propositional and can be expressed in words. Words help one connect the work to other things outside the work or direct one's attention so one can see things in the work.

9. drangie - August 27, 2010 at 12:48 pm

I am neither surprised nor befuddled by the lack of conversation about art (defined broadly to include the performing as well as the visual and aural). I often define art as that which says something (about life, the world, experience, thought, emotions, etc.) that can't be said in any other way. It makes perfect sense to me that talking about art is so difficult, since art is what we turn to when words fail.

10. carrieprz - August 27, 2010 at 04:45 pm

Modern and contemporary art are no more about themselves, exclusively, than contemporary music or literature are. Art, regardless of the form the maker chooses as a mode of expression, is just that: a mode of expression--about ideas, emotions, politics, current politics, personal experience . . . the list is, and has always been, endless.

Somehow, if you can read it, or if you are able to hum a few bars, it is not as intimidating and worthy of respect.

And dance--well you have to be really talented and coordinated and graceful, which means you have to have talent because ordinary folks can't move like that.

But visual art: if it "looks like something" it requires "talent" and is therefore art. But if "my child could do that," it must be to simple for consideration as art.

Except that real art, in what ever form, often seems effortless. That's part of its charm.
But try to write a decent haiku poem. One that seems to mean something. And then write a second. And a third.

Or try to write an original piece of music that is at least memorable, even if it's not catchy or attractive.

In realms where children rarely work, it's easy to acknowledge that creation is never simple, and to create something meaningful is rare.

That, folks, is "art."

11. dank48 - August 30, 2010 at 09:42 am

A woman once sent James Thurber a selection of her young son's drawings, with a letter claiming that the kid could draw at least as well as Thurber. Thurber wrote back, "You are right. Your son can draw as well as I can. He just hasn't seen as much."

12. sara34 - August 31, 2010 at 10:00 pm

As an (aspiring) art historian who paints too, I have to agree. I've not met many others who attempt even the slightest work of art. I think we'd get a vastly different type of art history if more people knew the joy of putting paint to canvas before trying to write about the finished product.