Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Two Distinctions Regarding Art


Art has a two-fold function. First, it should reflect the times, the zeitgeist, the present state of things. Second, it should be normative, describing how things ought to be. (These are, of course, two sides to the same coin, both manifestations of the Truth, but in practice they are fairly discreet functions.) Modern art, while embracing and more or less fulfilling the former function, has all but abdicated the latter. The films of Ingmar Bergman, the paintings of Pablo Picasso: these and other works are capable of describing - in often powerful and poignant ways - the alienation that modern man often feels from his work, his neighbors, his environment, his God and himself. Such works frequently convey the disorientation experienced in the modern age. But what they frequently fail to provide is a normative direction, an orientation which can remedy the disorientation of modern life.

This shortcoming, though unfortunate, is not entirely surprising. Providing both descriptive and normative content not only requires doing two things at once, but can have an added difficulty. In an age that frequently lacks direction, those in touch with the zeitgeist are themselves all too often lost; those with a sense of direction can sometimes be jarringly out of touch with those around them who lack such direction.

Without a normative dimension, descriptive art risks becoming self-referential. This happens for the simple reason that people look for and implicitly assume normative content. Thus, if someone sees a work which describes modern alienation, they are liable to assume that alienation is the proper response to the age. And they, in turn, will then produce works which describe their state of alienation. Without a normative dimension which can depart from the present state of things, descriptive art becomes a self-reinforcing feedback loop.

When, or how, did this state of affairs come about? Though no art historian, it seems to me a key turning point happened in the move from impressionism to expressionism, the second distinction I would like to make. Though there is sometimes a sort of middle ground between them where they can look similar, the concept behind each is quite different. Classical realism sought to depict things as they are, in literal physical detail. Impressionism - such as Monet's Impression, Sunrise, pictured right - was a kind of Kantian development of this approach, still representing physical things, but adding the subjective quality of depicting them as they appear to the artist' senses. Expressionism changed this approach in a radical way, turning art in upon itself and making the artist the subject.

There is, I think, I real connection between the descriptive/normative distinction and the impressionism/expressionism (world as subject/artist as subject) distinction. Unless one adheres to a philosophy that the answers to all life's questions and problems lie within one's self, normative statements must acknowledge the world around us. "I am miserable because my wife berates me all day, as a consequence of my treating her like I would a fork or knife." "My business is about to be ruined because erosion on the hill above us is triggering a mud slide which will soon envelope us." "The little birds that sing outside my window put me in a good mood." "My soul finds rest in God alone." All of these statements, though about the self, connect one's state of being - unhappiness, failure, happiness, tranquility - to things outside the self. All of these statements are, in fact, descriptive, but by taking into account some aspect of the world that surrounds us, they imply normative behaviors: The husband should quit objectifying his wife. The businessman should work to end the erosion, or move his business quickly (or both). The listener should continue listening to the birds. And the Pslamist should place his full confidence in God.

It comes as little surprise then that modern art, for all its descriptive power, is so rarely normative. Would we expect anything different from navel-gazing?

4 comments:

Aaron Linderman said...

The following come from the Facebook side of things:


Thaddeus Romansky: I don't think I disagree with the thrust of your note.

I'm curious how you developed your first premise. Is there an aesthetics to which you are appealing, but not citing which claims art indeed serves these two functions?

I think some of the 20th century's artists would claim that art's normative function was falsely imposed from without by society or religion or ideology and that by denying its normative capacity they were freeing art (I think of Dada as a radical example of this stance).

The dichotomy you're identifying also is connected, I think, to the growth of a critical stance toward society and culture during the 19th century, especially among the avant garde, partly in their reaction to the growth of democracy and nationalism.
My two cents, at least...


Aaron Linderman: I'd not thought of it before, but I think you're right that many artists would see the rejection of the normative as freeing art.

I don't know exactly where I came up with the descriptive-normative distinction. It's probably been rattling around back there for a while. In one form or another, this distinction - often in the form of a debate - can be found in discussions of Christian (or other religious/moral/ideological) art. Do we depict the world as it ought to be, full of smiling happy people and perfect families? Or do we depict pain and brokenness? It seems to me the answer has to be both. Indeed, the Christian notion of redemption really demands both. Without the Fall, there is no need for salvation. But salvation is the Good News that we profess to share. Both have to be part of the story.

Aaron Linderman said...

Robert C. Hamilton: This is an interesting way to look at art, Aaron. I'll have to give it some thought. My usual way of expressing what art should "do" is that it should fulfill the creative impulse that most normal human beings share, and should pose some kind of challenge to the status quo: not necessarily a "rebellious" challenge, but just a dare, as it were, to see differently, to re-think what is normally taken for granted.

I'm not sure how that meshes with a dual normative/descriptive function ... but I might say that different ages require a different dose of that combination to achieve a meaningful challenge. I think of Picasso showing his "Guérnica" to a fascist military officer. The officer asked him, "did you do this?" And Picasso replied, "no, *you* did." Sometimes, an "expressionistic" or distorted gaze is needed to make people realize just how bad x or y is (as when Flannery O'Connor insisted that her tales of murderous amputees and such were necessary to make grace stand out more).

Of course, I also think that critics have exaggerated the depressing quality of modern art. First, you have paintings from long ago dealing with cruelty, as in Goya:

http://starr.pausd.org/~lgoldman/mmart3/class/16/saturn.gif

Then, you have someone like Míro using modernist techniques to be quite playful:

http://www.everydayyeah.com/books/joanmiro.jpg

And we can reflect more deeply on the gospels with Dalì:

http://www.abcgallery.com/D/dali/dali206.jpg

And for that matter, can we not see something "normative" in the brand new Burj Khalifa, leading us toward transcendence with its shapely, dizzying architecture?

http://glasssteelandstone.com/Images/UAE/BurjDubai-A06.jpg

Just some thoughts tossed off rather quickly. I'd love to hear your reaction to some or all of this ...


Aaron Linderman: I think you're definitely right that the "expressionistic" or distorted can be useful, even revelatory, for how bad things can be. And this, in turn, is often a description of the world around us, not of the artist.

Though I have boldly lumped all of art into two categories, and then aligned those two categories with broad swaths of art history, ... See Moreyour various examples nicely demonstrate that these don't always line up. It is not entirely fair to claim that all modern art (ie, expressionism and after) is self-centered and only descriptive, not normative. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there's a broad congruency between this philosophical outlook and this era/style of art. I'm intrigued by the notion that different eras need description and norms in different doses. I'll have to think on that...

Lastly, I'm intrigued by art as manifestation of the universal creative impulse. I'll have to think a little more about whether it relates the descriptive/normative or world-as-subject/self-as-subject dichotomies, or is a completely different way of approaching the topic.

Aaron Linderman said...

Paul Heimann: Interesting reflection...

I have to say I don't like the reduction of art to just those two categories--that it should be reflective of the times and/or normative. I think that starts on the slippery slope to reducing art to what it "says". Art should challenge, as a good dialectical partner, where the viewer poses certain questions and is also ... See Morequestioned by the work itself.

I think practically speaking, we want art to be true. We recognize truth in art when it shows us something familiar (i.e., descriptive) or normative (i.e., what we hope/wish for). It is a mistake however to think that these are the only avenues for truth. Sometimes the unfamiliar and the anti-normative provides as much dialectical possibility, if not more. By shocking, displacing habits and assumptions the same truth that manifests under the aspect of descriptive and normative artistic forms may cut through and surprise. I think art in the 20th century became more difficult and antagonistic, in a lot of cases, as a response to cultural complacency. There's a way in which the soothing aesthetics of the merely descriptive and normative art can lie.


Kara Maggiore: This is only the very beginning of my thoughts since I have been studying this a bit and plan on going to grad school for Art History next year, but one should really refrain from calling "Contemporary Art" by Modern Art's name. Modern Art began with Cezanne (sort of) and ended with Andy Warhol and did not involve nearly as much post modern deconstructionism.

Second, distorted images do not always attempt to represent "how bad things can be." In true Modern Art, such as Picasso, they can often represent a certain "view" of a an object. In Modern Art, unlike Classical Art, the viewer and the viewed are on the same plane and interact in the work. For instance, how does an artist depict viewing an object from a train? How do you show this new (in the 19th/early 20th century) sensation/experience? Often, "distorted" images in modern painting attempt to convey this complex viewing experience.

I also argue with the claim that Classical and Renaissance Art represent things as they are. The world is hardly organized and rarely seen through 1 or 2 point perspective. Neither you or I can stand absolutely still with 1 eye closed and view a landscape just as it is. Our "vision" is composed through an elaborate network of what is actually there, the play of light, the movement of our body, the movement of what is being viewed, and more. I view 1 point perspective as a manifestation of the arrogance or pretended arrogance of the Renaissance--namely the belief that the world can be understood perfectly through the various academic disciplines.

I appreciate and place high value in the doubt that is expressed in Modern Art though I admit to the tediousness and condescending nature of Contemporary Art. I am tired of pretend Nihilists running around decrying the state of the world and claiming that their art represents their despair. If they were true Nihilists, they wouldn't be creating at all--how can one create if nothing truly exists?

I also agree that expressionism becomes more about the artist. Jackson Pollack has always posed this problem for me. (I'm not a huge fan.) But, that is a specific type of art that requires its own distinction.

You know what...I'm going to stop there because I can talk about this until I'm blue in the face. I'm always interested to hear people's definition of and opinion on art. It gets my blood flowing and my brain going! :)

Stephen said...

I don't know as much about art as all these peoples, but it definitely seems to me that Aaron is on to something.

It also occurred to me that there is an analogous type of navel-gazing in some modern literature. I'm thinking of writers whose primary interest seems to be themselves, especially when they write about what it means to be a writer. The example that comes to my mind immediately is Mann's "Tonio Kröger." (I haven't read Joyce's "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and have only glanced at Rilke's "Journal," so I won't venture an opinion on those works.) I don't mean that nothing about the artist's internal creative process is of interest to others, but only that there is a real danger that self-examination will degenerate into navel-gazing.