Why does one choose to become an artist? What intention motivates him? What does he want to portray with or through art? Does he want to show Art or something else through the medium of Art? Then is Art only medium or is it an end?
It is always someone portraying something through Art. Is Art then nothing more than an instrument? A pair of glasses to show things better? A telescope or a microscope of sorts? Or does the subject portrayed get marginalised in the larger construct of Art? Do the subjects then become instruments and tools for Art? Or is it a symbiotic existence? Does then an expression like, 'Art for Art's sake,' make sense?
In an art gallery, for example, what is then shown to us? Is it an exhibition of Art itself or of consciousness through Art? But I see I am digging deeper here (to a point of digression?). The relationship between Art and its subject is further problematised by consciousness. What is consciousness made up of? The consciousness of the 'artist'? Of course, the subject is ubiquitous in the artist's consciousness. Van Gogh's chairs are focal points in his consciousness and as a consequence in his paintings. They become a part of him to such an extent that the chairs become almost portraits of the artist himself and/or of his absence. Three completely different entities converge to become one whole making it impossible to separate the artist, the subject and the Art. A triangular relationship is realised between the three. Of course, to place one thing on top and the other two at the base would be erroneous. A hierarchical division would collapse the whole project.
Does this mean that man and his subjects can be linked only through Art? That would obviously mean that Art enjoys a pedestal higher than the other two. But then it is the artist who gives birth to a painting, sculpture, writing et cetera. And it is the subject that, in the first place, inspires. Perhaps, it is a matter that concerns time. The significance of one thing over the others is ordained by time. In the beginning, the inspiration, or simply the environment, is most significant. Because it exists on its own. Then when the artist develops a relationship with it, the two become inseparable. Then it is the consciousness of the artist, absorbing and obliterating, that matters. And finally, when that consciousness is suffused by the artist on his canvas, paper or clay it is the Art, that extricates itself from the ties of the artist's consciousness, that becomes most significant. But then I would be saying that the significance of one thing over the other is purely chronological and it is history that decides the relevance or irrelevance of the three things. By that logic, since it is Art that lasts the longest, Art is most significant. But this is a mistake because then we are trapped within a faulty logic which asserts that time is placed on an inclined plane and as we move towards the future we are moving higher and higher. This idea might be comforting but it is very far from the truth. To say that 'now' matters most is the pinnacle of human arrogance. For those alive a hundred years ago, 'then' was a serious matter.
To say that only 'now' matters is to carelessly deny memory its due even though it is fundamentally that which has created that now. When one considers Art, it is usually the finished product one is looking at. Even though the processes are important to an understanding of the product, it becomes subservient to that which hangs on the wall, framed and on display. Why? Because it is tangible, tactile, visual, auditory and sensual. The past is obscured by the present because the latter is easily available. To reach into its history means effort which necessarily means a digression from daily routine for most. Those who can afford to do the required, that is, reach into the past, have the luxury to do so. Hence, Art is for the fortunate or for the doomed. To the common man, whose instinct for basic survival is the strongest, all Art is useless. But it is not my purpose to delve into the economics of Art here. For those to whom it matters, the problem with Art is considering the gulf (if any) between the artist and his tools, between him and his Art and so on, and consolidating the fracture that takes place among the three after its fixation.
To say that only Art matters because only Art is immortal would be an impatient conclusion. The artist and the subject might be pushed behind the canvas but their significance cannot be undermined as their existence is central to the existence of the latter.
No comments:
Post a Comment