ku # 497 ~ 99.999% redux
Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 10:16AM 
A sunny winter moment # 2 • click to embigenThere were a number of comments re: ku # 496 ~ 99.999% from various individuals that touched on basically the same core idea - 99.999% of the general public relates best (in a way that is not overtly elitist-intellectual) to 'Decorative Art' and, even though that Art is not as 'esoteric' as that appreciated by the 'elite' 0.001%, what's wrong with that?
IMO, nothing is wrong with that. Decorative Art does, indeed, serve and satisfy a somewhat universal human need, that of the Sigmund Freud's pleasure principle - the drive to seek pleasure and to avoid pain.
However, it is interesting to note that it has been opined that, as one matures, one begins to learn the need sometimes to endure pain and to defer gratification because of the exigencies and obstacles of reality: "An ego thus educated has become reasonable; it no longer lets itself be governed by the pleasure principle, but obeys the reality principle, which also at bottom seeks to obtain pleasure, but pleasure which is assured through taking account of reality, even though it is pleasure postponed and diminished." ~ Sigmund Freud
IMO, I believe that the majority of humankind is guided solely by the pleasure principle and that (amongst many other things) their appreciation of Art is based solely on that principle. They seek out Art that is solely suited to relax, sooth, and pleasure the senses.
I am struck by Freud's aforementioned quote and its similarity to a common description of what constitutes a 'good' photograph, i.e. a picture that is able to hold one's attention and reveal new and expanded meaning well after the initial thrill (the visceral reaction) is gone.
Aside: Please notice my emphasis on the word 'solely'. It makes an important distinction , not so much about Decorative Art v. Fine Art, but rather about those who pursue DA, and only DA, solely as a means of escape from and subsequently not dealing with 'reality'.
2 quick points - Gordon - the best Art is both Illustrative - aka 'decorative - and Illuminative - aka, addressing the eternal quest for the meaning of life, our relationship to the world and beyond.
Paul - re: You've started down the path to "elitism" (a state that you personally often attack when speaking about ART CRITICS). I have no problem at with art critics many of whom write and critique on an 'elite' level. After all, I was a nationally published one myself for awhile so that is why I only personally attack the 'lunatic fringe of art academia' - altogether, an entirely different breed.
Reader Comments (3)
Here is the link to an article that I thought might fit in a bit with this topic. It is by L. Ron Hubbard about Art.
http://www.writersofthefuture.com/newsletter/january.htm#1
I don't know that I agree that the best Art is both Illustrative - which in this context appears to mean pretty or attractive or generally pleasing to the eye.
Some of the most thought provoking or Illuminative works I've seen and enjoyed would not be something I'd hang on my wall. maybe that does make them lesser Art than if they were also pretty. I'm not so convinced.
I needed to take some time to contemplate a response:
I agree with you that humankind seems to be solely driven byu the pleasure principle. I would modify the statement "They seek out Art that is solely suited to relax, sooth, and pleasure the senses" to be "They seek out... soley for the purpose to relax..." The distinction I'm drawing here being between artistic intention and that which the viewer is drawing from the work. I think there is an awful lot of Art produced with the intention of Illuminating but which is bought solely for decoration. I'm ignoring, for a moment, the flood of DA produced solely for that purpose.
However much an artist wills Illumination on the audience, the act of being Illuminated can only be drawn from the work by the viewer. I might just as easily draw Illumination from a "pretty picture" as not from a deeply involved piece. That would come down to my relation to the matter of "addressing the eternal quest for the meaning of life, our relationship to the world and beyond." A derivation of the "Law of Unintended Consequences" perhaps.
I think this is where the "lunatic finge" derive their lunacy. They are so hung up with the act of drawing Illumination from work that they trip over themselves to look for meanings in work, whether it be intended or not. I believe they become involved in a speculative discourse as to what meaning may be present, without really connecting with the work in a way that either is meaningful to them and/or derived from the artists intentions.