Contemporary art criticism has captured the contemporary artist and convinced him that a capitalist system necessarily commodifies everything, including Art. In part this is because of the leftward drift of the intellectual elites, in part it is true, and in part this is the result of a legitimate discussion of the nature of art.
Aristotle, and as a result the Western tradition in art more generally was based on the aesthetic principle until the twentieth century. As the twentieth century progressed the discussion broadened to include the cognitive and ethical aspects of art. In fact, the distinguishing characteristic of post-modernism is its exclusive emphasis on the cognitive and ethical aspects of art; they are concerned with art as artifact, an object of study for anthropologists, psychologists and political scientists.
Obviously, viewed one way a work of art is an “artifact” as the post-moderns would have it, but my point is that it is not merely an artifact any more than a man is merely an animal; he or she is a person. Contemporary critics all too often consider Art to be an object worth only its market value, like a person considered only an animal is merely a slave. Only a critic, a person who performs autopsies, could reach such a conclusion; rather than creating art he only thinks about art, which necessitates making it a corpse. This attitude misses the whole point of life and Art, which is to participate in the creation. Art is no more a mere object than a person is because it is the product of creation.
As far as anyone knows, man is the only creature to perceive reality (alpha-thinking discussed in an earlier blog), rather than merely experience it. As such, man is permitted to participate in the creation, and Art should celebrate this faculty of man because it is the hallmark of our race. We get to choose in some sense how we perceive reality and have a fair amount of latitude in how we think about reality. This creative act is done for a purpose. If a certain way of looking at Art produces better or more interesting results it should be explored until it fails to serve this purpose. We are at that point with contemporary art because the discussion has been reduced to a discussion about the cognitive and to a lesser extent the ethical to the exclusion of the aesthetic. The reason I dislike contemporary art, especially photographic art, is that artists have failed themselves and their creator by reducing Art to these two characteristics, eliminating the aesthetic altogether, which is like studying a corpse to know the heart of man.
I have often considered the question of whether I am capturing the image that is present, but hidden, or whether I am really photographing myself in a sense. I think the answer is both, because that is how we humans create; we are not capable of creating something out of nothing, but must infuse our self into the creation to create. J.S. Bach ended his compositions with the phrase “For the Glory of God” to indicate the prayerful nature of his work and his Art. He understood that his compositions were a prayer of thanksgiving for the gift and honor of participating in the creation. As artists we owe our creator our best, most profound thoughts and feelings. A work of Art is not merely an artifact.
No. 26: Is Art merely an artifact?
Contemporary art criticism has captured the contemporary artist and convinced him that a capitalist system necessarily commodifies everything, including Art. In part this is because of the leftward drift of the intellectual elites, in part it is true, and in part this is the result of a legitimate discussion of the nature of art.
Aristotle, and as a result the Western tradition in art more generally was based on the aesthetic principle until the twentieth century. As the twentieth century progressed the discussion broadened to include the cognitive and ethical aspects of art. In fact, the distinguishing characteristic of post-modernism is its exclusive emphasis on the cognitive and ethical aspects of art; they are concerned with art as artifact, an object of study for anthropologists, psychologists and political scientists.
Obviously, viewed one way a work of art is an “artifact” as the post-moderns would have it, but my point is that it is not merely an artifact any more than a man is merely an animal; he or she is a person. Contemporary critics all too often consider Art to be an object worth only its market value, like a person considered only an animal is merely a slave. Only a critic, a person who performs autopsies, could reach such a conclusion; rather than creating art he only thinks about art, which necessitates making it a corpse. This attitude misses the whole point of life and Art, which is to participate in the creation. Art is no more a mere object than a person is because it is the product of creation.
As far as anyone knows, man is the only creature to perceive reality (alpha-thinking discussed in an earlier blog), rather than merely experience it. As such, man is permitted to participate in the creation, and Art should celebrate this faculty of man because it is the hallmark of our race. We get to choose in some sense how we perceive reality and have a fair amount of latitude in how we think about reality. This creative act is done for a purpose. If a certain way of looking at Art produces better or more interesting results it should be explored until it fails to serve this purpose. We are at that point with contemporary art because the discussion has been reduced to a discussion about the cognitive and to a lesser extent the ethical to the exclusion of the aesthetic. The reason I dislike contemporary art, especially photographic art, is that artists have failed themselves and their creator by reducing Art to these two characteristics, eliminating the aesthetic altogether, which is like studying a corpse to know the heart of man.
I have often considered the question of whether I am capturing the image that is present, but hidden, or whether I am really photographing myself in a sense. I think the answer is both, because that is how we humans create; we are not capable of creating something out of nothing, but must infuse our self into the creation to create. J.S. Bach ended his compositions with the phrase “For the Glory of God” to indicate the prayerful nature of his work and his Art. He understood that his compositions were a prayer of thanksgiving for the gift and honor of participating in the creation. As artists we owe our creator our best, most profound thoughts and feelings. A work of Art is not merely an artifact.