A few weeks back Tom Lubbock of the Independent newspaper wrote an article questioning whether art had run out of ideas. In it he was quite sniffy about a public art project that I worked on called The Telectroscope:
“Was it art? I thought not. I thought it was just a fascinating public amusement like the London Eye. But it turned out it was an artwork, made by a bona-fide artist called Paul St George, – a discovery that was, frankly, a disappointment.
It wasn’t just an experience that was interesting in all sorts of ways. It was going to be about something. It was going to be raising issues or asking questions. And sure enough, as St George’s website reveals, “his practice as an artist has always been concerned with questioning the relationship between the viewer and what is being viewed.” Oh no! Suddenly the whole thing got smaller.”
Tom popped up again last week on Radio 4’s Today programme (which I’ve also have worked on recently – he’s following me around!). Again he was making the case against ‘explaining’ art, and in particular highlighting the horrible guff that usually gets stuck on a piece of white card next to each exhibit in a gallery.
Having just completed my first ‘what-shall-we-do-with-the-kids-during-the-holidays’ outing to the Hayward gallery in London I must say I have some sympathy with Tom’s point of view. There really was some horrible guff being written about artworks that seemed perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.
On the other hand, as someone who is in the business of writing and producing digital materials that support and enhance public arts projects, I do feel strongly that audiences need information and insights that inspire a ‘way in’ to a work, that trigger debate and discussion and – importantly – provide a connection between what we might call ‘high’ or ‘fine’ art and our own ‘low’ noodlings at home and at school - whether it’s with paint, glue and paper or it’s digital noodlings on YouTube or Facebook et al.
If you don’t believe there is a job to do here, get this from the Arts Council formal response to Ofcom’s Second Public Service Broadcasting Review:
“Many people feel uncomfortable about trying something new in the arts, even those who are already quite involved. People are concerned that they might not enjoy it or that they might not understand it or know how to respond. Some feel that the arts are just not for people like them. They believe they wouldn’t fit in at an arts event and might be looked down on by other members of the audience.”
Pretty much all of us have felt like that at some point when going to a gallery or a theatre or a concert hall, no?
So, yes Tom Lubbock, we do want art that can speak for itself. But that doesn’t rule out the need for information and stories that help to provide wider, broader access to that art, that help make people feel they’re part of an experience not standing outside it - and, importantly, inspire people to go away and make things, write things, create things.
In fact, isn’t that what public arts broadcasters should be using digital technologies for?
Ed Lea on Thu, July 31, 2008 at 2:52 said:
Ah, accessibility to art, the opening statement in my executive summary and the ongoing discussion at the dinner table.
Should art be self-explanatory? Should you have to work to find out what the artist is trying to say? Is it ok to find your own meaning in artworks? Is it ok to like an artwork without having to find any meaning or explanation?
That’s the beauty of music, you are able to try it out for yourself, through your headphones, without worrying about anyone else’s opinion of your choice of music. You don’t have to go to a recording studio, tip-toe in, make your way past the bands’ manager to see if you like the song, you can just download an MP3 and be as honest and judgmental as you like. You can read as much or as little as you like into any track.
Art, that’s another story. I’ve never been to a concert without first having listened to (and loved) the performer, but that’s what I’m expected to do with art. Turn up to some museum, unsure of what to expect, and look round at something I have no knowledge of. It’s a big ask if you are not into that sort of thing in the first place. I think what Tate Modern and the like have done is great, making art more accessible to the public. I think there is still some way to go before smaller, private galleries have the same appeal as HMV and it may never happen, this is where the internet can play an important role in the art world. The public can explore work at their leisure, in their own homes. Armed with this knowledge and new found familiarity with the arts, the art world won’t need to worry so much about having to explain artworks or the turner prize etc, the public will already be open to it and either seek more explanation or find their own meaning.
Andrew Dubber on Sun, August 03, 2008 at 2:49 said:
Explaining is not, I think, the right term.
Because when you explain something, you ‘solve’ it for somebody. And explaining presupposes a single reductive interpretation.
But art is not to be ‘solved’, and it never has one single meaning, regardless of the artist’s intentions, because the people who view and interpret the work (explained or not) will always bring their own perspective and baggage.
The artist can have a message, and this can be conveyed within the work - but the artist’s message is not the outer limit of all that the work can signify, denote or evoke. And nor is it guaranteed to be accessible to the casual observer.
Fortunately, ‘not explaining’ does not mean ‘not discussing’.
The experience of art can be enriched and the work itself opened up with guidance and by drawing attention to features and characteristics of the work, the context within which it sits, the creator’s intentions and so on.
Discussing art is, in large measure, the whole point of art - and doing so in an informed way is better than doing something from the perspective of ‘Well, I know what I like...’.
The logical extension of the ineffability of art is the idea of the unteachability of art or art history. But as we know, an artwork does not stand alone as a single statement devoid of context, history, connection or dialogue with past and other contemporary works.
So, when written in a considered way, the little white card is not only helpful, but can be the key to unlock a greater and richer creative interpretation on the part of the audience, and provides a springboard into discussion, contemplation and reflection.
And art is at its best when it questions. Knowing that a work of art questions the relationship between (for instance) the viewer and the viewed is not only a good starting point for approaching that work, it also brings up all manner of interpretive opportunities for the work’s ‘reader’. This small illuminating fact, once revealed, doesn’t ‘explain the work’ any more than the foreword to Finnegan’s Wake ‘explains the book’.
Attempting to ‘explain’ art in a simplistic and reductive way, and not discussing or illuminating it at all are two sides of the same coin - and it’s hard to tell which is worse. Both are an attempt to neuter the work - or kill it outright.
Darren Cockburn on Mon, August 04, 2008 at 4:31 said:
I feel there is great power in helping aid the understanding of art - the “little white cards”, for me at least, can be very helpful in providing context as well as illuminating particular aspects of a work - of course this relies on these cards themselves being well written, accessible etc.
There is a bigger question about the inclusiveness of “Art” - the extract from the Arts Council’s response to Ofcom frames this well. If the Telectroscope (or indeed the London Eye) were presented primarily as “works of art” then you can be putting up a barrier to peoples enjoyment and involvement - is there anything wrong with people experiencing something as entertainment?
Saskia Sutton on Wed, August 13, 2008 at 7:20 said:
I think the moment there is a long debate about the little white cards in a gallery all is lost!
If you have got someone INTO a gallery most of the battle is won. Once there, it’s all stimulating debate - even if its negative (maybe especially if its negative). At least art is being talked about.
Someone mentions above Tate Modern being made “more accessible”. Tell that to the population of the Warwickshire town I live in. Surely real accessibility must mean getting people to experience art be it a giant telescope, an unmade bed or an oil landscape who would NEVER bother to experience such things, let alone argue at the tone of a white card on a gallery wall.
As to ‘explaining’ art. Isn’t art about your own experience of it?
Tom Freeman on Thu, August 14, 2008 at 1:21 said:
I have to agree with all the comments above, and very well put they are too. I do laugh sometimes at the obviously self-important and pompous comments that can appear next to paintings in a gallery. But I don’t think you can say one way or the other whether they are good or bad.
For me, great art is something that gets me thinking about new things, and in new ways. It opens my eyes to new and interesting worlds and provides almost a form of escapism from a sometimes blinkered view of a world where we are so obsessed with the daily grind.
If someone wants to tell me a story, give me some background to the work, put it in a wider context. Then in some ways the card itself becomes part of the art and the wider story it’s trying to tell.
commercial on Tue, October 14, 2008 at 3:58 said:
Obviously something is wrong with the artist here. I agree with your point. There is not a big sculpture as telescope turn out to be an art.
Jeff Mowatt on Wed, October 15, 2008 at 10:45 said:
This would appear to be derivative art, from a concept first delivered in an episode of the Clangers, in which a telescope is found.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HArUmqqiL0s
Possibly also the origin of the expression “let’s not go there”
Saskia Sutton on Wed, October 15, 2008 at 12:03 said:
Dear Jeff, you bring up two interesting issues. Firstly - the notion that to derive your artistic influences from the CLANGERS somehow makes it lesser art. If I was the artist I would consider it a compliment and secondly the issue of creative copyright. I presume no rights payments were made to the copyright owners of THE CLANGERS now being screened on the You Tube link you have provided. Our 21st century conundrum.
Tim Wright on Wed, October 15, 2008 at 12:57 said:
well jeff it seems to be that most art can be improved by the presence of a swanney whistle. I always take one with me when I go to the Tate.
Seriously, it’s interesting how the web allows us to make this kind of po-mo connection so quickly. Perhaps this digital linking and the creation of associative pathways is one alternative/addition to the ‘white card’ that 4ip-back producers could offer?
“now let’s put away the rockets and save them for something more useful”
timw
Jeff Mowatt on Wed, October 15, 2008 at 1:28 said:
Tim, I like that quote. Would you like to read a paper about putting rockets away?
If so, follow my name link to a section on Crimea. No copyright on this “art” naturally.
Tim Wright on Fri, October 17, 2008 at 9:44 said:
jeff thanks for the link, very stimulating stuff
we’re going slightly off piste here but i was intrigued by this para:
“In order for economic development to take place in any given location, the very first thing required, before anything else can possibly happen, is information..”
Don’t tools come before that in most cultures? Pots and blades and tings? (and that isn’t a typo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ting_(vessel))
Subject for a different post/thread/website I suspect…
timw
p.s. I see you also have dealings with Tomsk - I thought he was a Womble not a Clanger.
Jeff Mowatt on Fri, October 17, 2008 at 10:02 said:
Probably the wrong place as you say Tim. I made an attempt to
convey what we’ve been doing today, on a Social Edge discussion.
http://www.socialedge.org/discussions/responsibility/what-to-do-in-case-of-a-meltdown
The comment about information needs was recently reiterated by economist CK Prahalad.
http://www.business.illinois.edu/publications/News_Item.aspx?ID=135
Pots and blades are fairly ubiquitous, though other tools are not obvious, for example how to obtain credit, where there might be a market for what I make.
Maybe we could consider the telescope a metaphor for this kind of information, seeing beyond existing circumstances?
Jeff
« Previous entry: What is the best way to fund digital innovation?
Next entry: 4iP and Games »