In major galleries, next to the artwork itself, there will almost always be a small caption explaining it. To clarify, I do not object to captions that state technical information such as the materials used or the date it was made. My worries concern the captions that interpret the art for you, explaining the themes and ideas contained within it. My worry is also that those captions are but one symptom of a central problem. A tendency for people to accept arbitrary decisions about what art is and what "good" art is. Captions are just a small and seemingly inoffensive part of this issue, and useful for illustrating the point.
In my opinion, the captions stifle free thought. Art is a subjective thing, and often many different interpretations can be gleaned from the artwork, and by many different people. However, by putting one interpretation on paper and in an official setting, it is raised above the rest. The unfortunate result of this is that the art may be hardly discussed outside the parameters set by the caption. People may even read the caption before the art and then look at the art with pre-conceived ideas, searching for how the art confirms the placard, rather than looking with an open mind.
I, personally, also object to captions because they enable what I would call "bad" art. While this not my only criteria for judging art, I believe that a lack of clarity is a "bad" property for expressive artwork to possess. If the artist wishes to convey an idea with little room for interpretation, they should do it in the art, not in the caption. If the artist are not skilful enough to convey their message in the art, perhaps they should tackle easier themes, or be content with producing what I would call "bad" art.
If the artist wishes to create artwork that leads to different interpretations and debate then captions can defeat this purpose, as they glorify one interpretation over the rest. If the artist wishes to express an idea through the medium of art, with little room for interpretation, then they should use clear art, not concise captions. Finally, if the artist is producing art for themselves, it follows they do not need a caption to explain it to themselves. If artwork is an attempt to fulfil any of these three major functions, captions are redundant or harmful.
Why then, do we have captions?
I believe it is because there is a lack of confidence about art. People do not know the right answer when it comes to art. This is because there isn't one; art is subjective. The problem is that captions imply there is a "correct" interpretation.
However, captions are not the only thing that treat art as something prescribed. I believe it is a problem systematic in the way art has been traditionally presented.
We live in a world filled with professional art critics making arbitrary judgements. As a result, people simply accept the word of those "better informed" and accept they just don't understand "good art." As a result, artists nowadays are allowed to put mundane objects such as an unmade bed into art exhibitions. These objects, which are completely innocuous if you ignore the gallery setting, have been accepted as "good" art by the majority, because the art intelligentsia and art critics have put it into a gallery. The majority do not necessarily understand the art, but accept it as "good" art because it is in an exhibition.
This definition of "good" art is clearly absurd. I think there is a better one, so at risk of repeating the same tedious arguments, I ask the question.
Question: What is art?
Answer: Whatevert you fucking want it to be.
Whatever you feel is art, is art to you. I don't want to ban galleries or placards, but they highlight an ugly arbitrary streak in the beautiful world of art. "Good" art is not just in galleries and decided by hidden arbitrary people. You can decide what is good art for you, and what is not. You can decide why you feel something is art, and why it is not. This has never been easier. The Internet offers a huge variety of images at the touch of a screen, ready to explore. If you see a crooked lamppost swaying in the breeze and feel it is artistic enough, it can be art to you. Other people may think it mundane and ugly, and so it won't be art to them. This isn't hiding behind subjectivity. There is still the same room for discussion if this philosophy is adopted. Absolute statements like "This is good art because..." or "This is art because..." simply change into "This is art, to me, because...." We change from debating absolutes to discussing feelings.
Art is whatever you want it to be.
However, art is also subjective, so feel free to disagree.
No comments:
Post a Comment