The poem you read is not the poem I have written. The poem you read is your interpretation of the poem I have written. The Rembrandt you see is not the Rembrandt Rembrandt painted. The Rembrandt you see is your interpretation of the Rembrandt Rembrandt painted. By their interpretation each reader/viewer/listener completes each work of art. Art is reborn with each human acquaintence.
An inescapable function of art is that it makes the audient an artist. There are (relatively speaking) few good artists.
Art requires no frame, pedestal, room, gallery, label nor sanction to be what it is.
Look in the mirror: you are viewing art. Speak, you are hearing music.
Stockhausen was accurate (though precarious) in describing 9/11 as "art".
That doesn’t diminish it nor stop it being horror and crime.
The art(work) is the artist's explanation of whatever exploration/problem/understanding/realisation the artist is addressing through the medium of their facility in art. It is erroneous (counter productive to the function of the work) and foolish/impertinent when insisted upon, to expect someone whose talent is paint or stone or assemblage, to do justice to that in words. To explain a poem in prose is to buy a dog and insist a tortoise wag the dog's tail.
Regarding written explanations accompanying art (often conceptual):
The explanation (the text) is itself art. Once read, the text becomes inescapably part of "the art". Regrettably, it is often of more substance than "the art"; in which case perhaps "the art" is merely an explanation/justification of the explanation.
To the audient:
Art speaks; with you. Observe the conversation.
If, when engaging with art, you hear yourself
thinking or saying, "what does it mean?"
strike yourself soundly
about the face
with the wet, dead herring you have brought
specifically for that purpose as (in art)
the question is not, "What does it mean?"
The question is, "What does it do?"
___
Recent Comments