Forums → WEPR → Should art attempt to justify itself?
| 4 | 2465 |
I thought I noticed a trend that rap is becoming increasingly self-referential in the sense that it feels the need to explain or justify its existence. This is likely owing to mainsteam culture's critical response to this form of music, especially in terms of its lyrical content. Rather than debate the validity of rap, however, I want to broaden the discussion further than just rap, even further than music, to include all forms of art. You often see an artist's statement accompanying works of fine art. The purpose of which is often explanatory, but with more controversial types of art, you might think that the artist is seeking some form of validation.
What I want to know is whether art should aim to justify itself to preempt criticism. Maybe art doesn't have to because it comes pre-validated just by virtue of being art, regardless of its quality or content. Maybe this move to validate detracts from the art. Or perhaps this attempt to justify conflicts with what you feel art should aim to do, and may even stop being art as soon as its essential "aboutness" is stifled by becoming self-referential. What do you think?
- 4 Replies
Even pinning down a definition of what art really "is" is really tricky. There are certainly art movements like Dadaism that didn't think art (or anything, really) had that self-referential validity. The problem is one of standards that seem to pervade most aspects of our culture. You can't just "aint something" anymore without it being analyzed and categorized by everyone else around you. If you try to break this mold of classification, then your still using set standards as reference points.
At the end of the day, if an artist has something they are trying to express through their art and it isn't readily obvious (Duchamp comes to mind) then having a statement accompanying it might not be a bad idea. This decision, however, rests on the shoulders of the artist and must be made after the "art" already exists. Therefore the "aboutness" and the self-referential nature of art is reflected in the artist and not his/her work.
You can't just "aint something" anymore without it being analyzed and categorized by everyone else around you. If you try to break this mold of classification, then your still using set standards as reference points.
Right. To take that point further, one might might say that the development of art, especially throughout its more modern history, is about art's struggle with the question "what is art?", as it tries to answer that question for itself by responding to those assessments and critiques with something that pushes the boundaries, and evokes further challenges.
At the end of the day, if an artist has something they are trying to express through their art and it isn't readily obvious (Duchamp comes to mind) then having a statement accompanying it might not be a bad idea.
I should have made a distinction between the work itself being the statement, and that statement accompanying the art. I don't see anything wrong with the latter, as in some cases it's necessary to cultivate the appropriate appreciation. But I was also thinking about the lyrics of songs, for example, that are about nothing more than defending their genre. That got me thinking about its significance.
Tangential interjection: Increasingly, art seems to be justified or even its existence (or status as a work of art) compelled by social circumstance or the need for commentary.
Recently, there was much controversy surrounding the arrest and investigation of high-profile photographer Bill Henson resulting from complaints regarding some pieces in his photographic exhibition focusing on the depiction of nude prepubescent/pubescent children. In the artistic protest that followed, some other pieces in the same vein were generated specifically due to said controversy.
In this case I find it ironically amusing that such pieces of art may arguably not have existed were it not for the need for social commentary on the knee-jerk sentiments of the public and their misguided intuitions regarding the moral status of children.
Strop,
I was thinking about that specific case, as well as others like it. That also fueled my quandary.
This is also kind of what I meant about the historical development of art. Artist produces x, the establish rejects x as art, similar pieces of art are then produced with the hope that if they don't get rejected, they must therefore be validated as art. It's either that, or the newer art incorporates what ever criticism the prior art receives, often satirically, so that now the critics must come up with new reasons to reject x. What constitutes valid art, therefore, has increasingly broadened and the project of art develops onward.
You must be logged in to post a reply!