Exceptional Art & Alluring Art or What Makes Some Art More Important Than Other Art
In a decaying society, art, if it is truthful, must also reflect decay. And unless it wants to break faith with its social function, art must show the world as changeable. And help to change it.
The above quote comes from German educator Ernst Fischer. His view of art’s purpose and place in society closely mirrors my own. I would like to briefly flesh out my aesthetic here.
Exceptional Art and Alluring Art
I’ll preface by saying that I am not one to label something as not being Art. I’m fully open to all ways, types, modes, flavors and functions of art. To me, Just about anything can be art (I guess I’m fairly Dadaist in that sense). However, when I think about Art, I do feel an impulse to discern and distinguish between certain characteristics. Perhaps against popular norms, I do want to leave room for what I call “Exceptional Art,” a term that I strongly contrast with “Alluring Art.”
Exceptional Art is art that I reserve the term “genius” for. Some characteristics of Exceptional Art would include (but are not limited to): The ability to have layer upon layer of deep meaning depicted in one piece, unmatched artistic technique or ability, and perhaps most important, the aptitude of a piece to speak to or provoke personal transformation and/or social change toward any blend of beauty, truth and goodness.
Exceptional Art is also honest. The ability to assess the world as it is at any given time–be it dark, sad and ironic or bright, happy and sincere–is so, so important. Exceptional Art is not only appreciated for its aesthetic beauty, but also for the thoughtfulness behind the work. The message (or what the piece communicates) is vital, and the prophetic ability of the piece to transform the viewer (inside and out) in a profound way is critical. To quote Ernst Fischer once again:
“In a decaying society, art, if it is truthful, must also reflect decay. And unless it wants to break faith with its social function, art must show the world as changeable. And help to change it.”
Conversely, Alluring Art would be placed at the opposite end of the spectrum. To be brief, this is art that, if nothing else, can be appreciated for its attempt at personal expression, and perhaps its aesthetic qualities (e.g. color, line, composition). Alluring Art is art that might fall under scrutiny for attempting to call itself “Art” (think of the Dogs Playing Poker painting in your Grandmother’s garage).
I do not make these distinctions to label one form of art as being bad and the other as being good. Quite the contrary, Alluring Art can be quite good and greatly appreciated (your Grandmother loved those cute gambling dogs!). What I am saying is that one form of art (Exceptional Art) is more complex than the other. It serves a higher function and has deeper dimensions coupled with a more purposeful duty and intricacy which are contained within the work itself.
Again, this is my personal aesthetic and I actually do agree with the Bohemian creed “art for art’s sake,” which is why I make the distinction of Exceptional Art and Alluring Art; we need them both. To some degree, complex Exceptional Art could not exist without Alluring Art. We could say, as integral thinkers might proclaim, that Alluring Art is more fundamental than Exceptional Art, BUT, Alluring Art is more significant.
…
Image above: Photograph of Marcel Duchamp’s sculpture Fountain
It is interesting that you write about this. I have been listening through the lectures that Westphal gave at Fuller over the Summer (which Tad Delay posted on his website), and the past few lectures I've heard were discussing Gadamer's hermeneutic in relation to art. I haven't read Gadamer before, so I don't have a lot to say beyond what I heard from Westphal. From my understanding Gadamer is making a similar move as you describe. Art needs to say something, show something about the world as it is, should be, will be. It helps to open us up to the world in a way we can't see normally.I agree with you that what is art needs to be open will necessarily be a wide river, but I'm also ready to push much out of this large umbrella that doesn't seem to need to be included.
In those lectures, there is a distinction between entertainment and art--even though they are allowed to coexist or overlap. Movies are a good example of this, there is fundamentally difference between the typical romantic-comedies that will be so popular this month and say any of the Cohen Bros. movies. Or the random 'neat/cute' snap shot on your phone with say an Ansel Adams photograph. And not to say you can't make exceptional art out of romantic-comedy movies or phonegraphy, but when one makes that attempt there is a story behind that separates it from the mere entertainment.I really feel like there needs to be something that the creator is trying to show/say with their work--and that is the distinguishing line between art/entertainment or art/craft.
An example, I recently started an etsy shop. I have a collection of different small woodworking type items. In a recent conversation with my dad, he referenced one of the items as art. I was quick to rebuff that decree, for this reason. I know why he saw it as art: it is beautiful--i.e., what is beautiful is art. And while simply stated as such I want to agree, but in practice I will rebuff it. For me the things I'm making are not art, I am not intending them in that lofty sense. They are merely decor, the cute & stylish items of a home. Not to say that woodworking is excluded from fine art, certainly not--but at this point I definitely lack the skill to express myself through the medium of wood.
If you haven't listened to those Westphal lectures yet, I would recommend it. I have been very impressed with the clarity in which he speaks on the topic (and the amount of off topic rambling stories is just great).
Jonathan, great comments! It sure sounds like we both hold high views of both art and its role in the world. I am definitely going to check out those Westphal lectures, thanks for the tip! I have heard of Gadamer but only second hand from other philosophers and theologians, HA!The entertainment and art distinction is interesting to me because it's something I struggle with being a visual designer. I don't consider myself to be an artist. In fact when I tell people what I do I usually say I'm a communications designer or a visual planner so they don't get confused. Do I think graphic design can be art? Yes of course. It's why I tend to think of these things in terms of a spectrum where, like you say, things can overlap.
I may, however, be more lenient then you, Gadamer and Wesphal in what I am willing to actually label as being "Art," which is why I use the terms Alluring and Exceptional Art. I'd be fine with you calling your woodworking items 'Art' for instance (which I'm going to check out by the way!). I mean Etsy is general is deeply reminiscent of the Arts and Crafts Movement of the late 19th, early 20th Century, which was intensely important in advocating for economic and social reform by being strongly anti-industrial.
Also, like I say in the post, I am sensitive to the 'art for arts sake' creedo. I think it's a valid point. Basically the impulse to create is its own justification for being Art; Art doesn't need to be morally justified. And since I accept that, I guess I have to allow Art to be morally subversive then. But of course I don't have to like it or recognize it as being very important.
Fischer's idea that contemporary art needs to reflect decay I think is really interesting. Does he mention artists who he thinks are doing this really well? The first two artists who come to mind for me: Banksy and Andy Goldsworthy.
Fischer doesn't give any specific examples, that quote came from an interview he gave. He was a writer who was working in the WWII era and was sympathetic to anti-Stalinist efforts, so I assume he was referring to literary artists of that time? I obviously feel it applies to a broader scope of art in general.
I hadn't heard of the turn to arts & craft of the late 19th early 20th century. That is curious, I'd be interested in looking further into that.I don't think the art/entertainment distinction is perfect, because like you described your work, it's not art but then what is it? Maybe something about how the work becomes a means to a separate ends (design meant to lure in purchasers) is involved in that separation.
Let me go out a limb. There is something about art which stands out, out from the every day. A lot of art is about the creator seeing something in life that is hidden or ignored and bringing it to the surface--framing it to aid in it's standing out from the background of life.
Why I don't think the things I make are art, is because it is a commodity of home decor. The things I've made are simply items which when gathered with other items disappear into a _____ style. People style their home not for artistic intentions but rather for intentions of impressing their friends, or worse an attempt to justify their hollow materialist life. Even the person who collects 'fine art' for these same intentions has striped the value of those works--at least in this context. But I'm probably getting pretentious now.
I think intention & perspective is really important in this discussion (of both creator & audience). And I think saying art for art's sake probably makes the decision of art or not much easier. The object that is unusable except to be hung and admired is easier to say is art compared to the ceramists fine pots that could be used to serve salad but also could simply be set apart to be admired. The fine pot might be easy, but what about the slightly wonky coffee mugs my wife made in wheel throwing I in college? I drink out of them all the time, they have probably stopped being art to me and are simply an object to deliver my morning beverage.
Anyhow, the question of art is such a great eternal question to continue to return to and dialogue over.
As a last note...re-reading the quote, I find the thought that to be truthful art today must reflect decay--possibly implying that it can be art maybe even good art but if it isn't reflecting decay it is untruthful, or more boldly a lie. Which means that Christian kitsch art is a sin, since it doesn't truly reflect the decay in the tension of the already but not yet of the kingdom, yes?
My etsy shop is: perrodinsupplyco.etsy.com and my wife's amberperrodin.etsy.com
Good thoughts Jonathan. I think you're dead on that this is an eternal question, and a darn good one to ask.I'm with you that intention is important. But for me there is something else at play (and I think you're essentially saying the same thing here). One main reason I make a clear distinction between art and what I do (design) is the same reason why I refuse to call myself a musician even though I play guitar and write goofy little songs. Most people would be fine with me calling myself a musician but I think I have some good reasons for not doing so, e.g. I can't read music, I'm not formally trained and only play one instrument--and not very well at that. I also would not dare call myself a writer, even though I can technically communicate ideas in written form. I don't take the title of Artist, Writer or Musician because, like I think we have both established, I have a high view of what those professions symbolize. Further, I somehow feel that if I--a guy who possesses only half-assed musical ability and is only committed to his instrument at a hobby level--am aloud to call myself a musician that that somehow significantly diminishes the discipline. Call it humility, call it reverence, call it idealism, but I call it just being honest.
By the way, your last note is brilliant. I agree, if art isn't reflecting the truth that there is discord in the world, it's just a lie as if it were not offering a solution to said discord.