| The
Simple Art of Designation (2008)
by
Christopher Orapello
The
notion of “what is art” has undergone so many
changes and modifications through the past one hundred years
that to determine anything as being art without simply succumbing
to everything as being art is more accurate than contrary
to the belief; or so it would seem. The boundaries and rules
that at one time seemed to govern and indicate the notion
of art have given way to such an extreme that one merely needs
a reason to establish something as a form of art. I think,
therefore I am. I speak, thereby it is. I create and so it
is art, but is that all there is to it?
Speaking
a thing into creation is not a new concept since according
to the Bible such an act of declaration made by God has long
sufficed as a means of creation. Now it seems to be a primary
practice for people regarding the creation and establishment
of art. Where at one time standards in art prevailed, they
have now been altered or removed all together for the liberation
of the individual and the purpose of human expression. But
even that statement sounds empty, because even within the
bounds of simple artistic creation, which have resulted from
human expression, most examples of art in today’s world
are not necessarily regarded as being good art, implying some
sense of aesthetic and artistic value and benefit to the viewer
and to the art world as a whole. Though to debate the notion
of good art versus bad art is mostly a moot point, as such
a notion is even more personally based (not to mention judgmental),
than the act of making art itself.
We
can’t deny that there appears to be a dividing line
somewhere within the problem of what art is and what art isn’t.
Upon first examining the idea that anything can be art, we
come to a clever point made by Esther Pasztory, It is
art if someone makes a convincing case for it. Is that
really all it takes to make art in today’s world? If
so, what does this imply and how did this come to be? To begin
to address this issue we need to go to the beginning of the
Twentieth Century.
During this time, the notion of what art can be had already
shifted away from the common traditions and standards due
to the emergence of photography. As a result, artists began
exploring new ways in which to make art Impressionism, Post-Impressionism,
and other early forms of abstraction and personal expression).
This trend was further influenced by the emergence of Primitivism,
which at the time consisted of art from such cultures as Persia,
Egypt, India, Java, Cambodia, and Peru. African and Oceanic
art was not included in this notion of Primitivism until the
early years of the twentieth century and it wasn’t until
around 1920 that the term Primitivism implied tribal art specifically,
though previous notions of the term, implying art from Persia,
Egypt, India, Java, Cambodia, and Peru still lingered, but
slowly fell away over time. This sudden inclusion and exposure
to such a variety of representational styles and forms had
a huge impact on the art world. For example, African and Oceanic
masks and figure sculptures were ‘discovered’
by Matisse, Derian, Vlaminck, and Picasso during 1906-1907
. This exposure to these masks immediately influenced Picasso,
which is evident in his famous painting Le Demoiselles D’
Avignon (1907). The faces of the two woman depicted on the
right reflect the direct influence of these masks as a result
of his sudden fascination with tribal forms of artistic representation,
which implied a freer more exaggerated approach towards imagery.
The
changes that were occurring within the art world during the
initial twenty years of the twentieth century primarily dealt
with application and representation. The public was being
exposed to non-representational work around this time as the
definition of art still continued its ever present metamorphosis
into what, no one knew. It was during this time of change
and growth that the greatest shift in the notion of what art
could be occurred.
This
single event of change that I am referring to is Marcel Duchamp’s
submission of his sculpture Fountain (1917) to the Independent
Artists Exhibition of 1917, where it was later rejected because
it was nothing more than a signed urinal (R. Mutt 1917) that
was placed on its backside. The sculpture would have made
it into the exhibition if it wasn’t for painter George
Bellows, who utterly refused it. His argument with collector
Walter Arensberg over the work is summarized by the following:
Bellows
is quoted as stating, “It’s indecent… We
can’t show it and that’s all there is too it!”
During
this moment of frustration his cohort, collector Walter Arensberg,
humorously disagreed, “This is what the whole exhibition
is about; an opportunity to allow the artist to send in anything
he chooses, for the artist to decide what is art, not someone
else?”
Bellows
says in rebuttal, “You mean to say, if a man sent in
horse manure glued to a canvas that we would have to accept
it!”
“I’m
afraid we would.” said Walter with a touch of undertaker’s
sadness.
Judging
from the conversation, I feel that it’s safe to say
that George Bellows would have been even more outraged seventy-nine
years later by Chris Ofili’s image The Holy Virgin Mary,
1996, a multi-medium collage piece done on linen, where one
of the main materials used was elephant dung. I think it is
further safe to say that if Bellows had not died by 1996,
I’m sure this piece of art by Ofili would have surely
aided him in doing so before the turn of the century.
The
level of outrage exhibited by Bellows over Duchamp’s
Fountain and the seeming understanding displayed by Arensberg
is a prime example of the amount of conflict Duchamp established
by his artistic entry to the elusive exhibition. In response
to his rejection, R. Mutt (i.e. Duchamp) submits a letter
to the Blind Man, an avant-garde art magazine, which only
ran one issue, addressing the rejection of the sculpture and
continues to explain why it was indeed art; the claims expressed
for its rejection say that it was immoral, vulgar, and plagiarism
on the part of the artist while Duchamp’s reasons of
support for its artistic and aesthetic relevance are that
He (R. Mutt) CHOSE it. He took an ordinary article of life,
placed it so its useful significance disappeared under the
new title and point of view – created a new thought
for that object. The very claim that enabled Marcel Duchamp
to create the Fountain is now recognized as the notion of
Artistic Designation, implying that art is whatever people
designate as art, regardless of form content. By removing
the urinal from a restroom, Duchamp changed the context of
the item and by placing the urinal on a pedestal, he instituted
a new context for it, creating artistic commentary by its
new location and manner of placement. Viewers are now coaxed
into looking upon it as sculpture and relate to it differently,
as opposed to it simply being a urinal, because it is on its
back and on a pedestal instead of being attached to a wall
awaiting its next visitor. The common understanding and relationship
men have with such an item has been mostly removed, but not
entirely since it can still be recognized as a urinal, though
it is unable to be used. Unless of course, a daring performance
artist with a convincing case has some time to kill and a
lawyer or artist and musician Brian Eno who claims to have
siphoned his own urine into the Fountain, by bypassing it’s
glass enclosure one year while it was on display at the MoMA.
No
other piece of artwork in the history of art single-handedly
questioned the notion of art as only being a form of creation
more than this pivotal work. The reason for this outrage was
that Duchamp’s fountain was seen as a mockery of the
art world and what art could be. It was a response to the
trend of rethinking the notion of art and opened this idea
up further as a result. Though such a loosening of the commodities
and expectations in regards to art are in line with typical
artistic rebellion, they cannot be without their drawbacks.
The
potential ramifications resulting from the ability of labeling
anything as being art is that only a reason is needed on the
part of the artist for something to become art. The selected
item simply becomes art because the artist justifies it to
be. There is also no real standard which can dictate what
art is and what art is not, implying that anyone can then
be an artist and anything can potentially be art. This openness
permitted the barriers and determining factors which commonly
exist between art, artifact, non-art, and craft to be slightly
blurred; though in the case of Artistic Designation, context
is still a primary determining factor. For example, a piece
of jewelry that has history, quality, and is an example of
good craftsmanship would have a higher value and possibly
be revered as an artifact, if not art in itself, than a similar
piece of jewelry that lacks the additional aspects. Further
drawbacks regarding Artistic Designation are that being an
artist no longer requires skill or training on the part of
the individual and because of the absurd nature art can often
take as a result of the ability to declare anything as being
art, art runs the risk of being under great ridicule for its
odd nature which may even possibly destroy the significance
and relevance of art all together! If everything became art,
eliminating the current notion and sense of reverence for
art, due to its commonality, artistic fascination and focus
may shift altogether towards things that can’t be art,
making the concept of art come full circle by redefining itself
in those things which are odd and unusual, but bearing no
artistic relevance or point.
Now,
regardless of how open the simple art of designation may seem,
oddly enough there are still apparent standards that exist
within the art world because we would have more artists and
more items on pedestals if the idea of designation were entirely
true. The further proof of this is within the reality of art
in the art world, due to the fact that there is still a notion
of good art and bad art. Not saying that if art is bad it
is no longer art, but that as its claim of being art is lacking
in its message and relevance in the minds and lives of other
people relinquishing its artistic value and appeal. Another
element of proof that art isn’t as open ended as some
would like to think, is that there are still failed artists.
Or perhaps failed artists have failed because their cases
are not as convincing as the successful artists? So, regardless
if one needs training or not to be an artist, the fact of
the matter is some inherent ability is required on the part
of the individual to be a successful artist. The making of
art is not as simple as this might imply. For instance when
someone looks at a Pollock and says, “My kid could paint
that!” they neglect to understand or recognize the mature
decision making process that was employed by the artist during
the painting process and after the painting process, as well
as those decisions made prior to approving and/or displaying
a particular work. People like this simply assume that what
they are seeing is paint on a canvas, but lack the ability
to see anything more inherent in such forms of art. However,
the trained eye and mind that possesses the ability and knowledge
to approach such imagery, recognizes the value and artistic
quality and relevance in such works which is why the work
of Jackson Pollock, for example, is so renowned and sought
after and not simply mocked by the art-community like his
work is often put down by those outside the art-community.
In
the case of Marla Olmstead, a well known and debated four
year old abstract painter from Binghamton, NY, the claims
are that a child did paint works that sold for thousands of
dollars; though the underlying aspects of her work (any artistic
decision making, naming pieces, artist statement) have been
questioned by collectors and critics because of the often
apparent mature nature and even witness accounts of her father
interjecting into her painting process. So even in the case
and argument of the claim of a child painting like Pollock,
for example, are untrue due to the child’s own lack
of understanding, training, or ability to make conscious artistic
decisions about their own creative process in regards to image-making.
Part of the appeal to Olmstead’s work is that it was
done by four year old girl. People know this when they look
at it which adds to the understanding of the work, distorting/changing
the context of the work itself. I doubt that after years of
schooling and growing up that Olmstead will be still able
to produce work similar to what she was doing when she was
four or if people will even view it the same. Duchamp understood
this notion of context as stated in his letter discussed earlier
found in the Blind Man publication. He knew context was everything
and that placement and properly displaying a piece were essential
to its artistic significance, nature, and value; something
which non-art parents seem to lack when they scoff at a painting
by Jackson Pollock.
It
is now evident that the making of art is not as simple as
some would like to think it is, being something anyone could
do; it still requires ability, knowledge, and understanding
and not necessarily the conscious decision of an individual
to provide a good reason why something is now art.
This
argument then leads us back to the early twentieth century
in regards to Primitivism. Can someone make art if they are
not trying to make art and if they don’t recognize the
existence of art in their own culture? Some African cultures
don’t view the wood carvings they make as being art,
but simply see their work (ex: work similar to that which
influenced early twentieth century artists) as a furthering
of tradition within their own culture and not necessarily
anything special or ground-breaking. In relation to this notion,
Duchamp provides us with the example of something that was
not initially intended to be art could become art if it is
taken and somehow transformed (repositioned, displayed, and
named) by an artist. But what of the San (a hunting and gathering
society found in southwestern Africa), for example, where
no explicit philosophy of art has been reported . The water
carrier they make from an ostrich egg is a well crafted and
decorated utilitarian item, but is it art because it has some
visual appeal? Although Richard Anderson says the San’s
use of an ostrich egg reveals the economy and elegance of
their response to the challenges of the environment does this
statement provide a convincing case for the ostrich egg as
being art within the culture of the San people or for us to
view the ostrich egg as art in the context of our own culture?
After all, Pasztory presents the conflicting argument that
crudeness in primitive art is still crudeness, but in modern
(western) art crudeness has meaning ; implying not only a
cultural stigma, but a relevant contextual barrier, and a
sense of superiority in-favor of western art over primitivism
in general. How does Duchamp’s Fountain stand up to
this argument? Why can it still be considered as art? Regarding
western culture, this issue has already been addressed. It
is art because it was chosen by an artist for a specific reason
to be art. It is art because is creates a visual language
and commentary on common objects in our own society, their
utilitarian purpose and meaning and the effect and results
of changing the context of that item by placing it on a pedestal.
If the Fountain was sent to southwestern Africa, it would
most likely be used for some utilitarian purpose and not revered
as being a point of contemplation or thought because, due
to being San, they are more than likely unfamiliar with what
a urinal is. (a similar issue being portrayed in the comedy
The Gods Must Be Crazy where a glass Coca-Cola bottle falls
from the sky into the middle of a south African tribe). The
reason Duchamp’s Fountain has such value for the western
world is because we know what it was prior to Duchamp redefining
it and now what it is as sculpture. It has some form of relevance
to us as a culture and relates to our philosophy of art. Because
of the cultural barrier that exists, the San ostrich egg water
carrier is more of an artifact than art due to its extreme
foreign nature to our own culture. However, if ostrich egg
water carriers became popular sculptures in the western world,
you can be sure that I will be the first person to anchor
such a thing to a wall and urinate in it.
The
power of the artist to designate art is not without its short
comings and/or responsibilities. Such an artistic practice
obviously requires a keen eye and understanding of the art
community on a cultural level and the artistic quality and
nature of the designated object as well as the effect and
meaning it can convey. Such a practice as artistic designation
cannot be done to creations from foreign culture most likely
due to their foreign nature. Of course, if the item in question
has some relevance to our own culture, it must not be as foreign
as we would like to think and would obviously have some level
of kinship with the item in question. In cases where a foreign
item has no cultural relation to us artistically or culturally,
then what it can only be is an artifact of the culture it
was from, since it cannot cross that cultural barrier which
apparently exists. The ostrich egg water carrier was selected
because it was such an item. It did not relate to our own
culture and so it is obviously foreign, as well as coming
from a culture that had no known philosophy of art, further
emphasizing its apparent lack of artistic nature or relevance.
Regardless
of the practice of Artistic Designation, there is still a
cultural relevance and standard as to what art is and what
art isn’t. Regardless of the absurdity often found in
art, art is still viewed as a “serious” institution
embodying language, non-verbal language, social commentary,
and criticism for the purpose of conveying a message, creating
a reaction in the viewer, or for simple visual and aesthetic
enjoyment in relation to the understanding and philosophy
of society. And so indicates that even in artistic designation,
the same rules and decisions apply even if we’re talking
about a urinal that became a famous work of art; the making
of art is obviously not as easy as some would like to think
it is.
Bibliography
Calliope’s
Sisters: A Comparative Study of Philosophies of Art,
by Richard L. Anderson. Second Edition. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2004.
The
Grove Book of Art Writing, Edited by Martin Gayford and
Karen Wright. New York: Grove Press, 1998
History
of Art, Fifth Edition. by H. W. Janson, New York, Prentice
Hall, Inc., And Harry N. Abrams, Inc., Publishers, 1995
Thinking
with Things, by Esther Pasztory. Austin Texas, University
of Texas Press, 2005
Art
in Theory 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas,
edited by Charles Harrison and Paul Wood. Blackwell Publishing
- 2003
• On Primitive Art, by Emil Nolde, pg. 96 -
97
• Neo-Primitivism, by Alexander Schevchenko,
pg. 99 – 102
• Dada Manifesto 1918, by Tristan Tzara, pg.252
– 257
• First German Dada Manifesto, by Richard Huelsenbeck,
pg. 257 – 259
• What is Dadaism and What does it want in Germany,
by Richard Huelsenbeck and Raoul Hausmann, pg. 259 –
260
• exert from En Avant Dada, by Richard Huelsenbeck,
pg. 260 – 263
• What is Art, by Benedetto Croce pg. 102
Primitivism:
In 20th Century Art, vol. 1 Edited by William Rubin,
New York, The Museum of Modern Art 1984
|
