Art as a process, or as a product?
Art as a process, or as a product
Image source: https://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2010/originalcopy/intro05.html
What is art?
What is art? This is a difficult question to which you seemingly can’t offer an ultimate response. Maybe it would be no beauty without the struggle to answer such question, maybe art would lose its power or it wouldn’t be art at all if we all agreed to a strict definition. Regardless, if there is one certainty about this endeavor, then we shall agree that we need to approach the question starting from a premise. Among the ones who first noticed this is the Dada artist Marcel Duchamp who in early 1900 shocked the art world when he exhibited his readymade (a conventional object made for purchase and immediate use by any customer). In case you aren’t familiar with this artwork, the peculiar thing about it is obvious. It’s a urinal, labeled as art. Imagine a porcelain urinal exhibited in 1917 during a painting show and titled The Fountain (See image 1.). Some critics consider it as the most “acid” and intelligent artwork ever made, while others think that what Marcel Duchamp actually did to art, is what Einstein did to physics.
In this article, let’s focus on the following question: Can unintentional work be art? In regards to this question, let’s discuss what is more relevant, the artistic process, the concept behind an artwork, or the ways in which art is perceived by its viewers?
Art as a vehicle of change
Image source: http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/beuys-kunst-kapital-ar01019
Let’s consider the German Fluxus artist Joseph Beuys’ straightforward statement Kúnst=Kapital, in English Art=Capital (See image 2.). This contemporary reference statement points towards the Marxist theories of Art. According to the Marxist school of thoughts, art is being considered a commodity and was often associated with our consumerist society. However, as Marx himself highlighted, art has an “immaterial” value and that’s precisely what Beuys wanted to convey. Another statement that pertains to the same artist is even more relevant to our topic. In 1973, Beuys’ vision dynamited the art world by saying that “Every Man Is An Artist”. Behind this phrase, there is Beuys’ complex system of thought which aimed to build what he considered “a social organism as a work of art” (art as a continuous process of social sculpture).
Nowadays, the artistic practices that are socially engaged have a quite similar approach of art. They use art to challenge and to fight various social issues. The artistic process of these practices involves complex stages and manifestations, while the material / visual quality of an artwork has been dropped off in exchange for the engagement of the viewer into the utmost issues of the community he pertains to. In other words, some practices approach art as a vehicle of the change.
The force of the unconscious in art
Image source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjHWQfzhXII
3. Jackson Pollock performing one of his “action paintings”, 1947
The Surrealist inquiries of “automatism” and its implementation as a basis technique used to highlight the force of the unconscious in art conquered the art scene in early 1920s. Shortly after the end of World War II, the “automatic” techniques had a strong influence on the works of the Abstract Expressionists. Jackson Pollock’s approach was characterized by free-associative movements, sometimes referred to as “abstract drip paintings” or “action painting” but although he aimed to create unpredictable compositions, his work was driven by a conceptual premise explored vigorously. As such the finished product is not the whole artwork.
While Beuys was claiming for a unique role of art which could had to lead to a spiritual regeneration of society, the goal of the socially engaged art practices is to awake the spectators, to encourage them to get involved in public debates and to stand for good causes (example: fight any Human Rights violation). Contemporary art is often misunderstood by its public and that is the reason why art exhibitions are explained by a curator, yet one still wonders why a certain object is being considered an artwork nowadays.
Has the art world gone crazy?
For instance, there is the video work of the conceptual artist John Baldessari. “I Will Not Make Any More Boring Art” (see image 4.) seems childish and surely doesn’t resemble a painting by Picasso. In fact, the work underlines an obsessive struggle which eventually can turn into a punishment for any artist. As Baldessari remarked, his video work conveys what he “thought art should be, not what somebody else would think art would be” – a highly important position for this artist.
Image source: http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2010/john-baldessari/photo-gallery
According to Beuys, everyone is an artist, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the unintentional work always can be considered art. Neither the concept behind the work nor the artist’s efforts are necessarily enough, yet Baldessari’s work is recognized as art. Here is the central impact of Duchamp’s artwork. The Fountain transgressed all the previous (traditional) definitions of art, whose stakes were purely visual. Duchamp’s thinking is the main reference in a debate about what art is, or when an object can function as art. He pointed out that in order to transform a conventional object into art is to divert its meaning (functionality) and to fracture its framework. Postmodernists have often made use of this technique. For instance, in Martha Rosler’s video performance the spoon is no longer just a spoon. In her work, the kitchen tools have become instruments that accuse the role of women imposed by the patriarchal society.
5. Martha Rosler, Semiotics of the Kitchen 1975
Taking into account all the artistic positions previously mentioned, I would say that the unintentional can be acknowledged as art, but only in certain circumstances. Also, I consider that the arbitrary can play an essential role in the art-making process. You could even go so far and say that absolutely every single object in this world can be transformed and displayed as art as long as the artist changes the meaning of his chosen “readymade” and inserts the work into the proper cultural context.
Hopefully it’s not too disappointing if you were hoping for a final answer – art is a product, not in the commercial sense, but an artists produces something. Be it a piece of music, writing, a painting, a choreography, a photograph. If there is no product, then there can’t be art. The discussion of some (highly regarded) art has hopefully shown that the process and intention can have a very high importance, next to the technical execution.
In future posts I will delve more into the history and role of photography as an art form. The path to it being appreciated as art has beend (or is) a long, winding road.
Further reading:
https://www.amazon.com/Kant-after-Duchamp-October-Books/dp/0262540940
https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/themes/dada/marcel-duchamp-and-the-readymade
https://www.amazon.com/What-Art-Conversations-Joseph-Beuys/dp/1905570074
https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/glossary