But is it Art? Reading Response
Cynthia Freeland’s book But is it Art? deals with the idea of defining exactly what art is, obviously not an easy thing to do, as art means something different to everybody. Chapter 6, “Cognition, Creation, Comprehension” deals with the idea of defining this exactly. Art, Freeland claims, can do a variety of things, and the same piece of artwork can do different things for different people. For instance, Freeland cites work by the painter Francis Bacon, whose artwork seemed horrific to many people due to the images of screaming people. However, other critics saw only his superb technique, taking nothing from it symbolically.
Freeland claims that a proper interpretation is somewhere between these two extremes, looking partly at both and taking the art as a medium to express complicated thoughts. She goes on to explain why she finds this view relevant, as well as other ways art can be used for expression, and cites specific scholars who take that approach. For instance, Tolstoy feels that art expresses an emotion, Freud that it serves to express unconscious desires and lust, Suzanne Langer (among others) feels that art represents an idea instead of a feeling, and Dewey sees art as a tool to enhance people’s world and perceptions.
I feel that while this is a good basis, there is still the issue that each analysis is essentially correct. Nobody can really entirely know what the artist was trying to express except the artist. Therefore, there is no one “correct” way to interpret art. Art says different things to different people, and that is what makes it so wonderful. The fact that the meaning isn’t spelled out in black letters on white paper is what makes you want to come back to it time and time again, because each time you take a different meaning out of it. It also is what makes us reach for art as an expressive medium when we have feelings too complicated to express in words, or if we are confused about what we’re thinking. For instance, I know if I’m confused or angry or upset but don’t know exactly why, I reach for my camera or cello and lose myself in art momentarily. Once I’ve come back and thought about what I’ve done, it becomes easier to realize what my feelings were because they have been spelled out in the art, even if I couldn’t put them into words. This doesn’t mean that they say the same thing to everybody, but I can retroactively see what I was trying to say, what I couldn’t get across with words. Therefore, an essay on how to interpret art can only achieve limited usefulness, as there is no one “right” way to go about it. Freeland’s critique is good for trying to see different ways that one could interpret things, but in the end, art is still a highly personal endeavor. Another reason that this was hurt was that each method that was examined was used to evaluate a different work of art. Therefore, there was no consensus on when one interpretation should be applied over another. It is as if the reader is expected to know this, and to intuitively know how to look at art. While this is true in the sense that people look at art differently, it would seem that if people know which way to view the art, they would know what that view is used to say.
The next chapter, “Digitizing and Disseminating” looks at how technology has impacted our views of art. The main arguments follow the thoughts of three main philosophers. The first to be analyzed is Walter Benjamin. Benjamin believes that each work of art has an “aura,” something that can not be easily explained. This so-called “aura” is lost as art has become more easily accessible through technology, but Benjamin does not find this to be a bad thing. Instead, he claims that it makes people more perceptive and that it brings art to many people who would previously have been put off by the aura. The second view is that of Boudrillard, who takes a much more negative, dystopic view of the impact of technology. Boudrillard finds that life has become “hyperreal” or larger than life. An example of this would be Disney World, where everything is more perfect than it could possibly be in the real world, and weddings, which now seem to exist only for taking pictures and video, so that one can remember it rather than experiencing it. The third view, that of McLuhan, is again optimistic. He feels that art has become more democratic, it can be experienced by more people. It also increases the level which people are social through technology.
Again, Freeland takes a moderate approach between the extremes. She questions the optimism of Benjamin and McLuhan, but also finds Boudrillard to be overly pessimistic. She ends the conclusion encouraging readers to make their own decisions.
I find myself agreeing with Freeland to an extent. I feel that Benjamin is perhaps too optimistic, for there is still something to be experienced in seeing the aura of a piece of work. Boudrillard’s view is definitely valid, as one can see the effects he mentions all around us. Buildings are bigger, the lives of the extremely wealthy more extravagant than before. However, it seems a bit excessive to believe that people are no longer experiencing life, but only a simulation of it. McLuhan brings up some good points, but often, technology leaves us as lonely as before. If people are truly “interacting” with it, then it is only as a faceless stranger somewhere in space. The human element has then become meaningless.
Overall, the reading left me with several questions:
1. Does the medium of the artwork effect the magnitude of the impact of technology?
2. Has society always been this way and technology only heightened our awareness of it, or has technology truly impacted society?
3. If someone’s view of a work of art is different than the conventional view, to what extent is it “wrong” or merely “different”?
Tags: Add new tag