Just had a very interesting discussion with a German architect friend in which we discovered, once again, our respective Euro v. American way of viewing the world. This time the theme was, art/architecture. Actually, the theme was more, who has the right to determine meaning. With what he asserts represents a very American predisposition, I argued my unwillingness to surrender to artists the sole right to determine meaning. Namely, you cannot put a pile of shit (i.e., real shit) on a piece of board and tell me that it represents the next coming of Christ. Alternatively, you can tell me that, as you can tell me that it means anything you want, but I am under no obligation to accept your commentary or explanation of this shit. If I just see shit on cardboard, and nothing more, that is perhaps all there is to this piece. Moreover, if everyone who sees this sees just that, shit on cardboard, the question arises, is there something more?
Apparently, as an American, raised amidst the cacophony of our celebration of democracy and the democratic ideal, the celebration of the "every man", I believe largely (with, perhaps, some limits about which I'll have to give more thought) in the supremacy of the masses to determine meaning. I must say, I generally abjure the singular authority of the individual, in this case an artist, to determine meaning. I do this for, what to me, seems the simple reason that communication (of which art seems just a form) is a discourse between and amongst persons. A discourse, moreover, that relies upon shared symbology and iconography. If communication is to have meaning, then there must, at some level, be accord between the mutual parties regarding what the thing means. Of course, that doesn't mean that we can't fight around the edges (which may be quite broad, those edges). In fact, the great majority of language describing a thing of controversy engages almost exclusively these edges. At some point, however, there must be accord about basic aspects of representation. Furthermore, if you are bringing new meanings, new iconography, into the cultural language, then you, nevertheless, must bring me, the audience, along. Otherwise it seems you are talking just to yourself.
While talking to oneself might not be a bad thing, and I might even enjoy listening in, at such a point, I'm no longer trying to ascertain A Meaning to your piece; I'm doing one of two other things. Either I'm seeking to enjoy the piece on my own idiosyncratic terms. Or I pell mell adopt the author's perspective, without either understanding or perhaps really seeking to understand it and just, so to say, go with it. In either case, I have effectively bereaved the author of his presumed authority over meaning. This, I believe, is the right of either party to a dialogue. Of course, my conceptualization of art (or, at least, the presentation of it, and that may make a big difference in my thoughts on the matter, whether it's presented or not) is as a dialogue. I appreciate that others perhaps consider it more a monologue. The latter perspective, one evoking an image of the artist speaking to herself, seems somewhat fatuous, at least if it's published work about which we're speaking. But I'm not even convinced that unpublished work should/would escape this same analysis. Eventually, the author is always seeking to realize something (ideas, feelings, moods, etc.) in an artistic medium. That something relies, essentially, upon the artist's understanding of a shared/cultural symbology. And it seems not unreasonable to say, if NO ONE (and I mean, for argument sake, NO ONE) gets it, then it doesn't mean what the artist claims it means.
My European friend, however, argues that in Europe, they're more willing to surrender to the artist the determinative authority over meaning. Resulting from their experience with masses having made greivous mistakes (and that's why I think this may be more of a German thing, but he says no, it's Europe-wide) or just their general preference for hierarchies (also having to do with a monarchical history versus an exclusively "democratic" one), they are willing to cede their judgment to that of the expert or, in this case, the artist. Interesting how a preference for the viewpoint/opinion of the individual (artist, expert, etc.) arises from a history of deference to monarchs and a preference for the common person, or rather group of "common" persons, from a history built upon the rights of the individual.
Alas the question is, which one of us is right? Or need we even choose?
No comments:
Post a Comment