Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dave Fisher jotted down the following: > When a piece of art requires an *explanation* for a viewer to *get it* it's > usually toast for me. Ooh, I love this discussion! ;) This is an oft voiced criticism of some art -- and some artists -- that art should require no explaining. I've been giving this some thought recently, in relation to other stuff I've been keeping on the back burner, and I'm not so sure that I agree with this position wholeheartedly any longer. Almost everything we do requires learning at some point to be comprehensible. All apsects of science and most aspects of daily life (getting dressed, speaking, balancing a checkbook, what foods to buy to get sufficient nourishment, etc). It could be argued (and has) that even seemingly trivial things like seeing the world around us requires learning. So why should something as large, complex, and abstract as "art" be the one exception to this? What makes art so special that it should require absolutely no knowledge upon the part of the person experiencing a piece of art? Indeed, I find *value* in the explanation. If a viewer doesn't "get it" at first and receives an explanation, they have learnt something. They may not agree with it -- that the intentions of the artist are successfully conveyed through the object -- but they have learnt something about art. They are, perhaps, in a better position to appreciate other objects of art. Or, as I often find is the case, see old familiar things in a new light. To me, when a piece of art requires an explanation for a viewer to get it, it's an opportunity for learning. For all involved: viewer, artist, explainer. M. - -- Martin Howard | Harrisburg '79 Visiting Scholar, CSEL, OSU | Chernobyl '86 email: howard.390@osu.edu | Windows '98 www: http://mvhoward.i.am/ +---------------------------------------