The Meaning and the Accessibility of Art Today:
- Margo Dmochowska
- Dec 18, 2018
- 5 min read
Updated: Dec 23, 2018
Thoughts taken from the Klimt/Schiele Exhibition
‘Oh! One of my friends at the golf club said that her great aunt was drawn by Klimt. I knew that I had to see it.’ There was a pause. ‘I knew that I had to see it. And now I have.’ The woman quickly walked away, never to be seen by the painting again…
This was a remark, near-enough quote, that I heard a woman say after she saw Klimt’s Study for Mäda Primavesi (1912-13). I found it to be a great signifier of the sterile way some people approach art - with its resultant curiosity only leading them from one art gallery to the next, constrained and not allowed to change their lives in any way. Such an approach only focuses on the superficial aesthetic of art and pays no tribute to trying to discern its intrinsic value. We can even contest whether any instrumental value is taken away from it. Why seek art when, after experiencing it, you remain - so to speak - as you were?
One can appreciate art even if you do not necessarily like it or are changed by it yourself. It may not be the sort of art you seek, but its intrinsic value transcends the aesthetic hurdle and can be understood, or at least, respected. Why, though, seek something that gives no real value to your life? A sterile approach means you are left largely unmoved by the experience. If your definition of an experience only requires your physical attendance that is. Let me illustrate with an example:
A biology student reading a particularly complex account on oxidative photophosphorylation – yes, I did use the longest biological term I know – can skim the text, go from word to word, and think they know what it means because of their knowledge of the English language. The question is, do they understand it? If they then had to explain the respiratory process in their own words, I imagine that they would feel lost and unable to explain what they had just read.
Such is the case with art: we attempt to use our superficial knowledge - of the criteria for good artistry; the art’s monetary value etc. – language that rules our temporal society - to explain something we do not understand. Something that goes beyond time and day-to-day contingencies. Art demands to be understood. And the process is even harder as, unlike a piece of literature, we are not lead from one point to the next – we are presented with the clues and conclusions all in one mess. Yet it is a discernible mess; one that takes effort and commitment - just like any form of study.
One cannot deny the aesthetic aspect of art. Something must draw us in to look at a painting, picture – whatever it may be. I did not go to the Klimt/Schiele exhibition with no incentive. But for this issue I ask myself, why am I drawn to it? Is the aesthetic part merely superficial - an end in its own right that focuses only on the form of how the actual painting is executed - or is there a deeper cause, a catalyst of sorts, an intrinsic message hidden within the work of art that draws you in and justifies your conclusions and gives aesthetic its true meaning?
Maybe there is a false association – which should in fact be a dichotomy – that assumes aesthetics [esthetics in the US] is the same as the colloquially used term of aesthetic. Ayn Rand’s definition of esthetics in Philosophy: Who Needs It follows ‘… the fifth and last branch of philosophy is esthetics, the study of art, which is based on metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Art deals with the needs – the refuelling – of man’s consciousness’. Thus, did the woman who seeked the Mäda Primavesi to fulfil her ends in fact already constitute her ends by the means with which she went? Now using her strictly as a metaphor to make my point - quite possibly so. Such an action strips the agent from their power, and curbs all notion of free thinking. The needs of man’s consciousness are not addressed and – in consequence – not fulfilled.
There comes a point where we have to ask ourselves the age old Ciceroan question of Qui bono? - Who benefits? A person with no concrete philosophy but a comfortable income can be easily swayed by those that feel self-entitled to change the context of art. It can be stripped away of anything valuable - making it as aesthetically appealing as possible to masses of people - and then used for the ease of monetary exploitation. Not convinced? How is it that the tickets for the Klimt/Schiele exhibition cost £16 (standard admission) and that the very artists who created the work led very economically modest lives, often facing financial hardship? How can this be the case for so many artists; past and present? One can answer with the fact that the value of art often rises with time. That may be true in some respects, as it can be possible to not realise the value of art contemporaneously with its creation because it is so ‘ahead of its time’ - or it just takes time for the artist to gain publicity etc. It is evident, however, that this financial disparity often arises due to mere sensationalisation. Usually, a person with lots of disposable wealth decides to buy an art piece and causes people to start valuing that piece of art too - as a by-product - because of our primary focus on monetary value. There is hardly any thinking involved. We are almost too afraid to say ‘I like this’ or ‘I do not like this’ if our opinion does not coincide with the trend of monetary value. It is in this way that art becomes a mere commodity, a statement of wealth that requires only minimal – ergo superficial – participation. It becomes a mere spectacle for the surface of our eyes to marvel at: drafting the spectators to become gallery foot-soldiers - going from one painting to the next - unable to think for themselves. Views of art become mass produced from a limited number of sources that control its perception in the public, and its perceived value.
It can be hard to have no assumptions or not to act on prior external influences when looking at a work of art - and we often feel lost without these – but that’s exactly how art is kept as a commodity of the upper class. Our own history is kept away from us. And history of art is treated as an esoteric practice that only a chosen few can understand. In fact, we all have the potential to understand it but we need more than some art galleries – granted not all –offer us. That being an erroneous focus on personifying artistry and artistic method itself, and a heavy emphasis on the history of the painting (when it was auctioned; who bought it etc.) - when what we really need is the history behind the painting itself. This can dissolve the perception of art as a symbol of social status – ergo help the public develop a true understanding of art and let it add value to their lives. As in the end, what does it say about us if we are ignorant and unaware of our own history?
Comments