Streetlights on the 98
Art should be a challenge. It should be a spotlight on the negative, a flare in a dungeon, a shake of the shoulders. Good art instigates.
About a month ago, I started participating in a group art blog with some friends. Something I noticed about the first couple projects was that they centered around personal, favourite things. I realized that I don’t often make art (at least, nothing I’d bother to show anyone) with that sort of subject matter - part of why is above.
So what does that bit of rhetoric mean? Art is nothing if it doesn’t change you somehow. The effect doesn’t need to be enormous, but your mood or mental processes should take a new direction. The best art can turn you around, flip you on your head, or propel you forward with remarkable force. This is part of what distinguishes “art” from “entertainment” (the details of this idea will make up the body of a later post).
When I say that art should be a spotlight on the negative, I mean that it shows us the things we don’t want to look at - but should. Everything is not okay, but good art makes us take our medicine. All this sounds very inflammatory and strident, but art can be subtle and contemplative and still accomplish the kinds of things I’m talking about. (For example, some of the most powerfully shocking images I’ve seen are the photos of Edward Burtynsky, which are silent and beautiful.)
Art can challenge the way we look at the world, and remind us that things haven’t always been the way they are. Just because the status quo exists, it doesn’t follow that it is “natural” or inevitable or eternal.
And now I’m going to contradict myself, if I haven’t already.
As I was thinking about how some of my friends would respond to these ideas - friends whose work is overwhelmingly positive and happy - I remembered that positivity can also be a challenge. In a sea of concerned frowns, a smile is more radical than a fist (I’m really pouring it on thick now, aren’t I?).
The key here is that both “positive” and “negative” art is necessary if anything is going to get done. The two complement each other. Showing people beauty will do little if they don’t realize that they are surrounded by ugliness. Showing people ugliness will accomplish nothing if there is no beautiful alternative to work towards. What unites the poles (it would be better understood as a spectrum) is the element of a challenge.
Lest people misunderstand me, I’m not only talking about representational artwork. Abstraction can be (and often is) even more of a challenge. By its very nature, it forces the brain to work in a new way: interpreting colour, shape, composition, etc. Abstract art doesn’t need to “mean” anything, in fact, it often doesn’t. And, for what it’s worth, not every piece of art I do is dour and negative. Sometimes I draw very silly things.
Art is like being playful with cooking. If it’s too positive, sprinkle some negative onto it and vice versa. You find yourself during that process.
I actually came across a pretty decent raison d’art in the newspaper, in an article about the sculptor James Carl: “to worry at the foundations of representation, revealing its provisional nature.”
Oh, I like that one a lot! And far more concise than this blabberfest. I might have more to say on that later. For now, I’ll chew a little while.