I wouldn't even understand some of what is considered "art" today if it was explained to me - let alone it 'speaking for itself'.
Art shouldn't require a separate explanation - of course it shouldn't - because it's art! Therefore anything that does require such explanation shouldn't be considered art, partly because art is meant to be open to many interpretations - explaining a piece of art is surely not possible, because a certain piece has unlimited connotations, which I suppose is linked to subjectivism.
I suppose there's a separation between art and art theory.
I'm inclined to agree with Wilde that art should be a matter of aesthetics, appreciated subjectively by each individual.
I think the purpose of art should be to heighten one's awareness to aesthetic refinement... to broaden our sensibilities to better appreciate the trivial and small details of the world; this is also the purpose of literature and the arts.
I agree with the original statement that art should not require an explanation, and that perhaps to begin to explain art - to understand it - to translate that original impression of beuty into words or another mode is a form of criticism...
Perhaps criticisms and art is inseperable, and we might surmise that where ever art exists there also must exist the critic to whom the art object is a matter for discussion, to further define and trace and produce theories of art, which in turn fuel our senses to what we perceive as art.
Yet I find appreciating aesthetic value is still determined by factors outside my 'subjective appreciation', for if I was informed the picture I was about to see was created through the random script of a computer rather than by a human hand, I would no doubt feel less appreciative than if it had not.
Since we take for granted that art is a construct of the human mind, we cannot differentiate ourselves from also considering motive, emotion, skill etc., no matter how we try to simply appreciate aesthetics.
Yet I find appreciating aesthetic value is still determined by factors outside my 'subjective appreciation', for if I was informed the picture I was about to see was created through the random script of a computer rather than by a human hand, I would no doubt feel less appreciative than if it had not.
Since we take for granted that art is a construct of the human mind, we cannot differentiate ourselves from also considering motive, emotion, skill etc., no matter how we try to simply appreciate aesthetics.
That's a very good point. However, i don't think it affects my argument.
The pure aesthetic appreciation would remain; the context e.g., that it was produced through random computer script, itself, becomes a mode of inquiry, of critique, and this contextualisation forces us to reconsider our position in relation to the art piece - whether or not we consider it art, still.
Art is very subjective in my opinion. I can appreciate technical expertise (ie something which has been painted skillfully or been well drawn), but this doesn't necessarily cause something to mould better into the form art than something with less technical skill evident, but perhaps displaying raw emotion or political statement. What I consider to be art is likely to differ from that which other's percieve to be art, as it isn't a word which we can concretely define. It is verging on emotion, and yet we try to define it in concrete terms as individuals. Art often does 'speak for itself' in my experience, although one might argue that the intricate description of art is an addition to the art, making it more of the form art than were it not described in words.
It doesn't always have to be spelled out, but without some hint in the right direction, the plebeian in the gallery isn't going to know it's arse from its head. Art does speak for itself, but some of the viewers arent fluent in the position of say Judd for the sake of naming someone "Modern". If you go to many "white cube" spaces and you'll notice that 99% all you have to go on is the name, size and artist. At the end of the day, art is an object; a simulation of "something". Let it speak for itself or let it have some big drawn out description; it matters very little. Art is the experience of the viewer responding to an object, not how an object presents itself to the world.
In my opinion art should speak for itself otherwise it's message is lost and it is reduced to mere aesthetics. That isn't to say it's meaning should be immediately obvious, or that it can't be abstract. I dislike art that to appreciate fully you have to read great clouds of exgenesis that could just as easily have been written after the fact.
I don't in particularly enjoy art that needs an explanation, I prefer art that has an immediate effect by evoking some emotion, whether that be appreciation (for the talent and skill required to produce it), or shock for what I am seeing, or any other emotion.
But there are pieces of art that need an explanation to give the full affect.
Even art masters like Caravaggio, who although at first one may just appreciate the skill, the art pieces mean so much more, and are appreciated more when someone explains the context in which they were painted.
There are also artists that are conceptualist artists, who believe the intent is what is important, the meaning behind the art rather than the arts aesthetic value.
Michael Craig-Martin’s ‘An Oak Tree’ is an example of a piece of art that actually has an explanation next to it.
I all come down to your own opinion anyway, some people would see ‘An Oak Tree’ an roll their eyes at calling it art. Others may read in to it more and break it down for the message behind it.
An artist creates with a conception in mind. Some people may intuitively grasp this conception immeadiately, but if not then an explanation can lead someone into perception of the true nature of the art.
Of course problems come in in different places, such as when people neglect the art work itself and just focus on petty debates of interpretation.
But I think it is very important to try and determine what message the artist was trying to convey. The best art is the one that most powerfully conveys its message.
There may be cases where the artist doesn't know what message they are conveying, but then unconscious factors can be brought into consideration also.
This also draws on the issue of what the art is discussing. Is art a pure form in itself? Is it representative of other things?
Discuss the merits and deficiencies of political theories and philosophical questions.
Art
