I have written before about art’s ability to affect and influence the individuals who view it. The method by which art accomplishes this task is what I termed non-propositional argumentation. Normal arguments use fairly clear premises to lend support to a specific conclusion; art, however, does not behave in this format. There is almost always a conclusion that any given work of art is meant to make, but the argument lacks the established premises of normal verbal or written arguments. This has the interesting but perhaps dangerous quality of influencing viewers who are unaware that they are even being exposed to an argument. Since they do not recognize the artwork as an argument given its hidden propositions, most people are therefore more willing to accept the argument (usually subconsciously) without mounting the kind of rigorous examination and critical review with which they would ideally ordinarily respond to any argument.
This seems to present a rather clear method by which art could influence a person’s ideas and thoughts, but can art go so far as to influence their actions as well? To properly answer this question, it seems important to address the next issue of whether or not depiction in art equals advocacy. This does not, however, seem to be too terribly difficult of a question. Certainly any violent and disturbing image of war (i.e.
Although it is a more difficult question to answer, I still believe that advocacy is not necessarily implied in depiction. An artist’s possible motivations and arguments for any given piece are virtually limitless. Without knowing what any piece in particular argues it is impossible to know anything about what is being advocated; still, it seems a stretch to say that no artist is capable of depicting an image that he or she does intend to advocate.
Even if it is possible for artists to create work that they do not necessarily advocate, the point is still secondary to interpretive elements of the art. What the artist is advocating in the work becomes an important distinction in cases such as Riefenstahl’s and in other cases where obscenity is an issue, but whether or not an image is considered offensive or obscene in the first place is still a function of how the work is perceived and interpreted by the viewing public. If the public sensibilities are offended by a given work of art, chances are the artist will be automatically assumed to be possessing of the same values that are allegedly espoused in the work. This was certainly the case with Serrano and Maplethorpe, and it was part of the reason that they themselves were attacked as they were.
Much of the attack, however, was also directed at the NEA and other elements of the academic community who were being held indirectly responsible for the direction in which art was moving. The issue with the NEA is an interesting one that is perhaps not without its merits. As a government organization, the NEA and the grants that it provides to artists are all funded by taxpayer money. Therefore, and much to the outrage of individuals such as Rev. Wildman, the taxpayers were the ones paying artists to create such “offensive” works of art. Many of the taxpayers themselves were upset about where and how their money was being spent. While this argument (that taxpayers should not support with money that which they find morally questionable or abhorrent) has merit and has been argued at least since Henry David Thoreau, it is also far from an isolated case. How many taxpayers have issues with the use of the military in recent years, and yet their money continues to fund these operations.
In addition to being outraged that their money was being spent on that with which they vehemently disagreed, the detractor of Serrano’s and Mapplethorpe’s work were upset that the NEA would recognize such work and promote it. Given art’s ability to influence (as per above), what groups like the NEA select is far more important than simply what will go in the galleries. The art that is selected will presumably have a deeper, more widely felt impact and influence on both the ideas and possibly the actions of the general populace. Steiner touches on this issue by bringing up the divide between the politicians and the academics. Those opposed to the art being produced blame the academics of high jacking the culture of the country. It is as though they are in a conspiracy to alter the common mores and ideas by directing art in directions that are more in line with their sensibilities.
Why does art have so much power? Other than its nature as non-propositional argumentation, what does it have going for it? Why is there a more outspoken reaction to visual art than written art? I believe that it is due to the power that images have over us. Seeing is believing, and we have automatic and subconscious reactions to what we see. We internalize it and respond to it without ever even knowing that we have done so. It’s this internalization and instantaneous consideration of what we see that gives images so much power of us. Seeing things is far more visceral, far more real than simply hearing about them. We form mental images that stay with us in ways that things we hear or read might not. We are more likely to be moved to disgust or subtly moved toward imitation by something we see. Perhaps in this way, art does have the ability to influence what we do.
The interpretation of visual data occurs almost instantaneously and without command whenever we receive visual sense input. We cannot help this interpretation any more than we can prevent it or control it. Art is, in many ways, all around us, and we take it in with a much more casual, unnoticed manner than that in which we perceive textual information. This is all part of what makes art so powerful, and therefore so controversial. If it were just a matter of avoiding images that one found offensive, this would be an easier problem. The real solution probably lies closer to this: support for artists needs to become more widely distributed, thus allowing a greater variety of artists to produce their work. Hopefully this would make everyone happy and have the added bonus of creating a more cultured society in the process.
No comments:
Post a Comment