If a three-year-old kicked out Kupferman’s painting, then I would suspect that child to be graduating from Harvard by age 12. Could most any child be physiologically capable of creating something similar? Well, as much as any child could pick up a camera, accidently press the shutter release, and take an excellent photo. Simplicity in process is not a sin, and we, as photographers, should truly appreciate this. Besides, I’ll take the Ramones over ELP any day.
Can a child produce art? Well, even if they don’t mean to, they can certainly craft something engaging. Can a child’s random scribble be dubiously sold as a rare piece by a famous artist? Yes, absolutely. It’s a complicated world, particularly when it comes to art and its value; things get real messy.
So do you buy the Gursky because you’ve been told it’s worth something, or because you actually enjoy his body of work? Is it all in the name, and if so, how did he establish the name? A recently discovered crappy Beatles demo tape from 1962 would hold immense value because of the Beatle’s historic contribution to modern music irrespective of the demo’s actual quality. Or maybe you buy the Gursky simply as in investment, just like you throw down a couple million on a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle baseball card because, while not worth much in material terms, it still has room to grow.
Perceived value. Well, this can be viewed as the exploitable creation of shrewd marketing or as that which helps underpin humanity’s greatest forms of expression. Or any combination of the such. It’s easy to fall on one side, particularly since cynicism and incredulity are safe, especially when the sensory and intellectual demands skew around the literal or conventional. One man’s trash, another man’s art, and so on.
Complicating matters is that intent and interpretation can be scattered all over the place: what is the work trying to say; is it trying to say anything; what was the artist’s intent; did they have any intent; what’s your interpretation; what’s my interpretation; is there a desired interpretation; or is it deliberately open to any interpretation.
I believe it was Susan Sontag who correctly argued that this common demand to find meaning in art can sometimes serve as a pretext for undue criticism. It establishes a weaponized prerequisite that detracts from the aesthetic of form itself. If one “does not get it’, then perhaps the artist failed, or maybe they’re just pretentious, or maybe it’s all just a marketing scam, and so on.
So to Tom’s point, sometimes, the aesthetic is the message. This, of course, is not to say that art never has meaning. But even to this extent, the meaning might be interpreted more through the visceral than through the intellectual, where the visual alone elicits reaction without need for further analysis, let alone knowledge of the artist’s identity.
And to Levina’s point, understanding the meaning, should there be one, can be enriching. At its most basic, for example, a photo of an elderly couple might mean little to the viewer until the viewer learns that the couple was their great grandparents. Kupferman’s piece is compelling without further context, but explanation certainly enhances its impact…this points to the issue of art appreciation, which has been discussed and even practiced throughout this thread.
Abstract is inherently controversially because the process seems suspect; my kid could do that, hell, my dog could do that. Of course, art excels in its final presentation, and the process is largely irrelevant; an interesting backstory, but not the point (unless meant to be so for artistic reasons). Otherwise, toss your digital cameras aside and start using glass plates.
Abstract is also controversial because it does not offer the comforting obvious. Yet, at its heart, it is the culmination of line, angles, geometry, contrast, movement, balance, composition, light, dark, color, tonality, tension, or even texture. Abstract is aesthetic form in its purest sense; and as a tool of expression, it can be very effective because of this directness.
And through abstract, we gain a better insight into aesthetic, which in turn applies to almost all aspects of life, even the conventional, pragmatic, and necessary; or what one might consider ‘real value’:
-Food: Visual presentation, ask the Japanese about its complementary attributes; or for that matter, ask McDonalds how much they spend to make a Big Mac look like a gift from God in their ads.
-Shelter: Ask engineers why architects are such a pain, or tell me Frank Lloyd Wright was only concerned about structural integrity.
-Clothing: Explore the visual world of fashion, where even primary “needs” can rise to soaring pretension.
Decisions to buy cars often extend beyond transport needs, where industrial design can also play a major factor. Even in the utilitarian constraints of the military, form can present itself, as demonstrated in the Battle of Britain, when the gorgeous Spitfire with its stunning elliptical wings symbolized and celebrated British resolve despite the plainer Hurricane shouldering a greater chunk of the burden---the inadvertent beauty of aerodynamics.
The above discussed mainly centers on commercial applications, but it should underscore the value of “art’s” elemental contribution to our general quality of life. But art’s value is not merely validated by its influence on the pragmatic, of course, and where it shines most is when it exists for itself. Here, the height of humanity’s creativity and expressional abilities manifest, becoming a central value to defining the personal, the cultural, the societal, the spiritual, the philosophical, and the emotional.
To be sure, we can dig through tons of pretense, fraud, and emperors’ clothing, delighting the cynic who clings onto the literal for legitimacy. However, when so much of life itself comprises complex and abstract concepts, not the least of which are our emotions, art would be derelict in its valued potential if it shackled itself solely to realism just to avoid the swindling barkers. And even when striving for the unembellished, artistic components can still elevate the statement, as evidenced by the work of superb war photographers. Photography is generally at its best when its effect transcends the subject matter, even when the subject matter is, itself, inherently compelling or beautiful.
But it’s all subjective! Yes, but this hardly renders the value of art as merely ‘perceived’, at least in a pejorative sense, and to prove this, we need only imagine a world without literature, music, paintings, sculptures, photography, design, and other artistic mediums. We are not robots, and the universal creation of art in all of its various forms proves that it is as much as being human as any other aspect of humanity. But on the granular level, yes, subjectivity exists, and we cannot force another to like something. This might be frustrating sometimes, but it actually speaks to our individuality, just as our individuality speaks through art, and this is a positive thing. What is unconstructive are blanket litmus tests, such as the ‘anyone can do this”, which add nothing to the conversation.
