studiOmnivorous

I’ve written briefly before about my simultaneous fascination and frustration with the commonly held (and oftentimes promoted) perception of the “Art(ist) as Magic.” As a persona, it’s exciting, mysterious; pretentious, elitist; showy but humble; true and false. The juxtaposition of contradictions seems to “fit” the artist, but is it a good fit?

Despite a clinical curiosity in how this concept plays out, ultimately, my opinions boil down to that no matter the short-term prestige of this persona, the final result is detrimental to the long-term success of art for both an individual artist and the larger artistic community. For many reasons, the “mysticism” of art lays the foundation for misunderstanding the nature of art, and part of the difficulty I find in encouraging the idea of “Art(ist) as Magic” within the public is the resulting effect on the concept of how, why, and what “Art” is, not just in terms of public support, but in terms of growth for both the artistic community and the artist themselves.

The following is an essay (in progress) considering the approach of the public audience in art by examining a perspective on the construction of the Value of Art.

A detail shot from the communal installation and performance piece, "Into the Ears of Our Child," (2011)

So what is “Art?”

Or more specifically for the purposes of this essay, what are “Visual Arts?” (I define “Visual Arts” further here as along the lines of or any combination of 2-D, 3-D, New Media, with a foray into Performance and Public Arts, as these are my primary experiences with Visual Arts; this essay may not speak as well for Theatre Arts and Music due my relative inexperience with the finer points of creation in these areas…but actors and musicians, I’d like to know your thoughts.) Rather than define “Visual Arts”* by a set of optical or conceptual guidelines that might limit or constrain the conversation by dating it through my personal visual aesthetics and cultural background, I propose instead a value construct that allows for a wider, more long-view equation of how to consider work.

*References to “Art” throughout this essay are to be assumed in the above context.

“Visual Art” as a value construct (seen primarily through the lens of academia and as defined by the general artistic community) can be reduced to a basic equation:

“Value of Visual Art” = “Art as intellectual exercise” + “Art as process” + “Art as product.”

That is, “Art” contains three parts fundamental (albeit in variable amounts) to creating value in the context of the larger world:

“Art as intellectual exercise,” which is the level of thought put into the conceptualization of what the artist is making, typically in the form of the reasoning and development behind the work, the long-term thinking that leads the artist forward (often expressed in the context of an artist statement, either written or unspoken), and the (social, artistic, cultural, or historic) theory-making or -referencing that such work can critique or contribute to…

“Art as process,” which is the physical making of work, not only in the actual “sweat equity” of trial-and-error work-hours put towards the work, but also encompassing the sketches, influence-building, and work-informing that the artist undertakes in the process of understanding the physicalities of their own work, material, and medium…

and “Art as product,” which is the manifestation of the work in a form that can be understood, expressed to or by, and/or vocalized by the artist and intended audience, typically in the form of exhibitions, participations, and/or commentary.

The presence of each contributes to the final face of the Visual Arts - to create a sense of “satisfaction” in and with the work as a whole for both artist and public – and is necessary to the creation of a successful body of work. Too much “intellectual exercise” and not enough “process” and “product” leaves a work that is overly conceptual and distant from the public, decreasing value to the majority of the public. Too much “process” and there often isn’t a coherent displayable work for the public to remark upon. And too much “product” leaves a shallow, short-lived legacy to the public.

Who is “the public?”

In any specialty, be it the arts, the sciences, et cetera, there exists a gap between those who are immersed in the culture and knowledge base of that speciality, and those who are not. However, this is not an “Us/Them” distinction; the lines between these individuals fluctuate and can be easily crossed and redefined as the culture shifts and new information emerges.

Within the innermost circle of the speciality lies the specialists themselves; surrounding them are those who inform themselves about the speciality but who may not directly work in that field; even further are those who are aware of the speciality but lack education; lastly outside are those who are ignorant of it, often due to circumstance, opportunity, and location.

The “Artist/Artmaker” is at the heart of the speciality, either in the larger context of art as a whole, or within the personal context of their individual artistic investigation. The artist is not a stagnant being; they are actively and regularly engaged in some form in the work as a method of deriving experiential satisfaction from work, specifically in the making and furthering of their work.

If an “Artist/Artmaker” is assumed to be an individual who makes work, the “Artistic Community” is composed of these individuals as well as those who actively and regularly engage the work they make: fellow artists, critics, gallery representatives, art appreciators, patrons, academia, et cetera. Whether in the larger context of art or for an immediate artist’s personal investigations, they are encultured to some degree in that world of artmaking and the language, customs, and practices inherent to it. They may not share the same direction about the purpose of work or artmaking, but find satisfaction derived from the conversation, and they are engaged in the dialogue of it all the same.

“The Public” refers to the larger community, whose understanding, awareness, and appreciation for the arts (or a particular artist/movement) has not been as consistent or as developed as those who exist in the artistic community, and for whom satisfaction (i.e. the determination of Value) may occur as a instinctual or peripherally-educated response to work. Too often for the public, information about the artistic community does derive from secondhand sources, from newspaper clippings and gallery reviews to stereotypes and fears. These factors combine to create a gap between artists and the public, influenced by the economic and individual circumstances that define who the artist is and what they do. Additionally, as a distinction: though they may create a component of it, “the public” is not necessarily the intended “audience” of a work made by an artist; for the puposes of this essay, “the public” is to be understood, in most cases, as outside of the work’s intended “audience.” “The public” may be “the audience,” but an artist’s intended “audience” is not necessarily defaulted to be “the public.” (As a brief example: many works have been made with the intention of engaging an artist’s contemporaries within the artistic community, but not necessarily including or offering the information necessary to communicate to those outside of this community.)

Art is not always a solitary activity, but the composition of the community with which that art is shared has served to create a distinction between the artistic community as separate from the public. For example, with the concentration of the visual arts into a trade – the Renaissance master/student school of thought, for example – the specialization of art became an activity reserved for a specific class of individuals. Albeit a necessary development, responsible for the economic stability needed to forward the refinement of material and aspects of technique and knowledge-sharing, this affected the specific gap between those who made art, and those who purchased, saw, or were aware of art, as well as those whose position in society mean they did not or were not.

Though the breadth of this gap is in flux from era to era as a result of the specialization and personalization of art, the gulf those changes have effected between artists and the general public creates an intellectual and artistic environment where the public largely exists outside of the artistic community as we know it today.

What happens when the public is distanced from the artist?

Understood as a group of people outside of – even excluded – from the artistic community, the public lacks the cultural nuances and special reference necessary to define and argue the value of visual arts outside of the artistic community. Simply put, they have not had the opportunity to be as educated or immersed in the first component of creating Value: “art as intellectual exercise.” Just like a tourist in a foreign nation, they may find it hard to hold a conversation when the language of that dialogue is not available or expressed to them.

Furthermore, the innerward nature of artmaking often conflicts with the gap between artist and public. Art is often a solitary process by nature and even necessity; an artist must have the means to intellectually digest the nature of their work, which for various reasons often manifests itself in spaces away from the public eye. The increasing solitude of the artist as sequestered physically in the individual studio, and socially within the artistic community – the artist and artmaking as located across the gap from the general public – leads to what can be lightly put as a lack of awareness of “art as process,” and a lack of understanding for the experiential pleasures and benefits of artmaking as an activity.

I feel it is safe to say that for most of the public – as a result of being excluded from “art as intellectual exercise” and “Art as process” – they see “Value” as consisting primarily of “art as product,” with all of the one-dimensional shallowness that brings. The general public’s understanding of aesthetics and culture lacks the multifaceted perspective available to the artistic community, and as a result the creation of “what is valuable” in visual arts becomes shallow. The Value of Art, rather than being viewed as a complex activity with many end-goals, is reduced to a commodity, further quantified in terms of being a luxury. Art becomes misunderstood to the public who surrounds it.

Why does the public matter to artmaking?

To create art, an artist must have the means of sustaining their artmaking long-term. Sustainable artmaking, in this essay, consists (also) of three components: Funding, Flexing, and Finding.

An artist must fund their work in some manner: they must take the steps to ensure they have the time, the energy, and the material currency (whether in the form of money or resources) to sustain their artmaking investigations long-term. The ratio of these factors may vary based on a combination of the individual needs of both artist and specific project, but influence the success of a final result.

An artist must also flex their work physically over time: they must continue an investigation through their artmaking that challenges the conceptual nature of their work and pushes the physical growth of their work so that it remains interesting and relevant to the artist, as well as flexible to new ideas, techniques, and sources that the artist pursues and with which they experiment.

Lastly, the artist must also actively find and engage those ideas, techniques, and sources: the artist must pursue the intellectual influence, education, and people who support and/or drive the artist to make work. Whether as in the simple form of strictly visual influence or in the more complicated form of a social and economic environment that supports the artist, these create the mindsets that sustain the artist over time.

Whether directly or indirectly, the public affects the ease with which the artist is able to identify and apply these means to make work. A supportive public – that is, a public that derives a high level of satisfaction from their engagement with art – makes funding work easier in an economic sense, such as through financial grants or residencies, or the stability to maintain basic needs – food, shelter, water – without encroaching on the artist’s ability to devote time and energy to artmaking as a pursuit. A supportive public helps the artist locate the social “permission” to facilitate a psychological support for artmaking, whether in larger terms of freedom from censorship to the more localized familial expression of providing space, time, and encouragement to make. Lastly, a supportive public increases the proliferation, production, and promotion of artists, as well as increases the range of experiences and backgrounds from which artists arise, which increases the ability of one artist to meet, learn from, and influence another in ways that drive art and the artistic community forward.

How do we create a supportive public?

The gulf exists between artist and the public is not a stagnant gulf: the gulf widens and perceived Value decreases when misunderstanding grows into dissatisfaction, and narrows when satisfaction is maintained through connection, engagement, and education, increasing the public perception of Value. The artist, as a workmaker, has within their process the ability to determine the breadth of that gulf in the present and future.

Too often, a body of work that fails to fully express these three areas of Value to the public – either as a lack of substantial effort in one or more areas, or in the inability to articulate an area adequately – fails to adequately create Value to the public outside of the artist or the artistic community. When public Value – and thus satisfaction – falls primarily into the realm of “art as product,” the other areas of Value in artmaking - “art as intellectual exercise” and “art as process” lack support from a disengaged public, making it more difficult for the artist to sustain their artmaking process. By ignoring, distancing, or even deliberately excluding the public from consideration in the artmaking process, the artist chooses to widen the gap between public and artistic community, and the value of art in general suffers as a result.

When an artist creates work that fully articulates the three areas of Value, by informing or engaging the public of “art as intellectual exercise” and “art as process” as well as “art as product,” they create a three-dimensionality to the work that increases the value of the work.  Articulation enhances awareness of and appreciation for the visual arts; it creates value to the public by expressing the value a work has to the artist and the larger artistic community. The public, in small ways, begins to be absorbed into the artistic community, narrowing the gap by making previously specialized information into public, general knowledge through exposure.

This articulation often occurs passively, in the display of work, but can be more successful when it engages the public in an proactive, interactive fashion. Active articulation and active engagement of the public creates an instance that contains not just an intellectual influence, but a physical and social memory of the work that creates a holistic, long-term impact on the individuals involved: artist and public alike. How the public feels about the involvement – largely based on the extent to which they understand the nature and effect of that involvement – affects how much they are willing to be a part of or otherwise support such an activity in the future. Rather than the public being “told” what to feel, think, or do by a perceived (or misunderstood) outsider, they are working or learning beside someone who, over time and repeated dialogue, they begin to view as within their community. When the three value concepts of visual art are discussed, shared, and/or created with the public in an inclusive environment, the artistic community grows, the gulf between artist and public narrows, and the value of art and artmaking increases as satisfaction increases.

What happens to work when the public is considered or involved?

I feel the fear of many artists/artmakers is that when art becomes community-driven, that art ceases to represent or fulfill an individual. Often in attempts to discuss “community engagement,” the confusion often lies with confusing “community engagement” solely with “community arts.” While “community art,” whose process at the heart engages more than one individual in a communal workmaking scenario, does distribute the work into a more collaborative setting, there is a misconception that “community engagement” in some way “dilutes” artmaking away from the individual as it includes others into the equation. There exists the wrongful idea that to consider audience and “community” is to somehow deter or diminish the ability of art or the artistic community to progress forward.

The introduction of the public into the sphere of the artist’s consideration does not necessarily reduce the artist’s claim or influence on their personal work, nor does it reduce the value of the work or the influence the work has on the larger artistic community. Artmaking is, at its most basic roots, an activity that occurs within the individual’s mind to be expressed through direct contact with the medium of the work they are making. Considering the community in the articulation of the three value constructs of art does not necessarily change the basic nature of the work; it does not require the public to be present at every step of the artmaking; it merely obligates the artist to produce or finalize work in such a way that articulates their perspective on each value concept adequately to the public, whether in passive formats (educational) or active formats (participatory).

Even with active articulation, the misconception continues that this must mean that the community is directly involved with the artmaking. Instead, I argue that the artist can (and must) engage the community in some form, but that engagement must not necessarily occur in production. Considering the idea of community engagement strictly in terms of “art as process” does the same single-minded disservice to the value construct of art as happens when art is seen solely as “intellectual exercise” or as “product.”

I agree that regular and well-developed community arts programs are an effective and necessary way for the larger artistic community to create engagement, and that much is lost when community arts are undervalued. However, I recognize that within the personal investigative journey of an artist, such community arts practices are not necessarily or always conducive to the journey of the artist in question or to a particular investigation; I do not ask that each work must contain this sort of engagement. Instead, I encourage artists to think more broadly when making work, to consider welcoming the public into the artistic community in other ways. Practices such as open studios, public demonstrations, active arts education, information and resource building (such as in blogs like this), and a personal responsibility to consider and articulate the three value constructs of art as perceived outside of their immediate community, all of these practices raise awareness about the arts in such a way to engages the public.

Articulation is demystification, which in turn creates understanding and appreciation for the artist and the work they make, all of which fuel value and the desire to sustain that which the larger social context views as valuable. The conscious effort of an artist to reach out and engage and articulate to the public is, fundamentally, part of the process of sustaining workmaking long-term.

***

…I still feel as if this essay has some room to mature…so, Nashville…thoughts?