Art: The Ever Broken Promise of Happiness

Art: The Ever Broken Promise of Happiness

The act of looking at an object that hangs on a wall or is positioned on the ground or suspended in the air can be one of the most organic and intimate experiences that the human senses can encounter. Whether one is surrounded by other human beings or entirely alone, it does not matter: the senses are engaged in looking and perceiving the object. But can the viewer call what he or she is looking at art? Perhaps. In order for the object ot be appropriately assigned the word “art” it must surpass our understanding. The object must communicate with us through our senses, but at the same time offer us a chance to transcend our senses and immerse us in the mystery that is before us. Simply put: art is the object that should confounds us. When one is in a constant state of indecision and frustration, the true art experience can occur. The purpose of this essay is to explore what it means to be confounded and to discuss the sifting process that occurs when this concept of confounding the viewer is applied to art. This essay will also discuss the difference between art, and objects that have an element of artfulness.
When one approaches this object two things occur; our senses engage the object and almost immediately thereafter, the object will ask a question: “what am I?” Almost as if given a riddle, the viewer will seek to answer the question. If it is quickly identified, understood within the realm of the viewer’s discourse, then the mystery is solved and the viewer can move on. If, however, the object causes the viewer to pause, to reconsider their discourse, and to furrow their brow, then what occurs inside the mind of the viewer is art at its best. Because the viewer is not trying to answer the question “who am I?” in the sense that it was asked by the object, but the viewer asks his or herself “who am I?” Thus, the mystery is turned inward, and the battle between reason and passion begins.
A practical application can be applied to this question of mystery when looking at a painting that tells most, but not all, of the story. H.G. Gadamer was curious about what questions we ask when we look at any aesthetic. He stated: “Interpretation… always contains a basic reference to the question that has been asked on one. To understand a text means to understand a question .”(Jauss, pg. 65) As one looks at art, it is important to look at the questions that unwind in one’s mind. The Bather boasts a classic subject; the female nude. Her back is to us, her head turned slightly
on its axis and her body is slouched, leaning to the right. From what the posture of her body says, it seems that her body is exhausted, perhaps defeated. Apart from her posture however, so much is left to be answered. Her arm is wound in a cloth that tumbles to the floor… why? And although the viewer’s eyes can scan the length of her vulnerable and naked body, it is clear that her nakedness is not for the benefit of the viewer (compared to the The Grand Odalesque) The viewer is catching her off guard, thus her unflattering posture. But all of this, including the genius of proportion, color, line, shape and proximity, does not make this art. What makes this art is her face, which is obscured from the viewer. If we could only see her face, we could better understand what she is thinking, why her body is slouched. Her body would cease to confound us.
Conversely, there are objects that boast themselves to be art, which are the very opposite to the word and the greatest, and most abominable, poseurs are conceptual artists. Since the early 1950s, and after the great wave of Dada, the floodgates were opened and suddenly everyone could make art. If an art dealer were able to display it, it was credible. The devastating problem is that everyone does not have a solid understanding of the elegant friction and mystery that must occur between art and viewer in order for it to be considered art. Therefore, the concept of what was being displayed was displayed and the concept alone was supposed to be cute enough. Piero Manzoni was the author of this concept, and is to blame for the genesis of conceptual art. In his work The Artists Breath the viewer comes into contact with a balloon that was blown up by the artist and attached to a wooden block. The idea is that his breath is what is worth money… so adorable.
The problem is that this pieces asks nothing from anyone, it does not confound one’s senses. Therefore it is not art. It does, however, have elements of artfulness. It still possesses color, and shape. It has the ability to cast interesting shadows and reflect light. Thus it has elements of artfulness but as Immanuel Kant suggests: “Courage is sublime and great, artfulness is little but beautiful.” (Kant, pg 51) This balloon is little but beautiful. It has some artfulness, but not enough to make it art. The attempt (and failure) of making it art is what makes this work kitsch. This work is on display with some of the greatest art in the 20th century at the Tate Modern in London, England. And even its proximity does not make it art.
It is important to distinguish conceptual art with Dada, because Dada is a great force in art. The concepts of Dada is like an eel in water; easy to see but impossible to catch with any naked hand. Dada uses simple, almost trifling objects (as in conceptual art) but their purpose is w what makes them extremely important. Figures four and five are perfect examples of art at its finest. Figure four, Marcel Duchamp’s Bicycle Wheel and Stool is a study on what does it mean to be functional, Man Ray’s The Gift asks the same question. Both pieces take simple objects and fuse them together, thus rendering both objects useless. The frustration between functioning and the loss of function is what makes both of these pieces so appealing, and so appalling. The logic of it is lost, and in its loss we see the question “who am I?” being posed. Theodor Adorno writes: “The logic of art, a paradox of extra-aesthetic logic, is a syllogism without concept or judgement. It draws onsequences from phenomena that have already been spiritually mediated and to this extend made logical.(Adorno, pg 79)” These pieces look to create logic, then dismantle it. The destruction is where the art is.
What confounds us is what is just beyond our realm of understanding, and that is where art is. The frustration is where we find ourselves and where viewing art becomes an intimate and organic experience. Questions asked hundreds of years ago are still as mysterious as when they were asked. That’s what makes good art good, and objects that are artful kitsch.