Short note to the construction of the concept “art”
When people talk about art, they must have their own definition of what the art is and what it is not. They must have something to work with. People usually agree in some respect and the agreement tends to be stronger among those who haven´t got any specific interest in the production of art. The most striking discrepancy seems to be among those who produce the work of art.
“The thing I am doing, is it only a thing like any other? Is it only a product of craft? Is it only a market product? Is it a work of art? What if it involves all these things all together?” These questions present a rough summary of the basic issues that are attached to the topic.
No matter what the answer to the question of the nature of the work of art is, I presume, it tells us rather more about the architect of the concept and about his creative efforts than it tells about the art in itself. People often agree that the art should be beautiful. Different group of people would say it reveals thoughts, ideas, absolute terms and values, or that it surpasses today´s culture (that means it criticize our society). But if you want to include “paraliterature” (garbage), farce, and embarrassing awkwardness among the work of art, because you see something important in such works or because you create such works, your construction of the concept will be certainly different than that of the student of the history of art.
Thus I encounter otherness in such discussion and what is more I encounter myself, because it brings to light why I use “pillars” (that are usually missing) to construct my concept of the work of art. To be more explicit: the last time I have used example of a ladder to the ideas. The ladder that would be embodied into to the work of art (not only attached as a note next to it), and that would help people to understand it. I really do emphasize this feature right now. But it is in contradiction with more general and more common definitions: it is governed by crowds, if not even by the market! It tends toward mediocrity and plain cheesiness. I can´t argue against such objections and I consider them appropriate, but not necessarily contradictory with the ladder, although I understand somebody can see it as inconsistent.
… it brings to light why I use unusual “pillars” to construct my concept of the work of art, why I use example of a ladder to the ideas. The ladder that would be embodied into to the work of art … , and that would help people to understand it….
Sometimes we need to know, at least basically, the experience and the “world” of the author to understand his work. When I let out my imagination, when I express my very own experience in the most authentic manner, at this time I create the most diverse things, but people usually don´t apprehend it. In fact I dare to say nobody apprehend it without explanation. I hear so often: “It is cool, but I wouldn´t find that out on my own,” or: “That would be great, but no one would get it.” Can you thus blame me for my effort to include a necessity of elementary understandability for ordinary human eyes to the construction of the concept art or the concept work of art? If I have a feeling that I perceive something interesting that is worthy to be shared, that is to be embodied in the medium and offered to others, what would be the point to create it in such a way that nobody would grasp the meaning? If you take into account other people, isn´t it similar to cultivation of one´s speech? When we produce works of art we deal with signs. It is a sort of sign system (even if we use a sign that doesn´t signify anything) in a same way the language is a sign system. If I refer to one possible meaning, to my experience, it isn´t important in which way I do so. But some ways are more comprehensible than others. I guess that nobody argue against the necessity to adjust speech to the audience, but once somebody say work of art and at the same time adjustment to the audience, everyone wants to bite his head off.
End of apology for today…
[I am not a native speaker. If you find any mistakes, be sure to (politely) comment and tell me more about my mistakes.
Original was published here in Czech language.]