Some people would argue that, like physics, art is a complex human endeavor that requires rigorous training, and, as such, it is justifiably obscure and difficult to understand at times. I think those people are making a silly and rather useless comparison. The study of physics is about understanding how our universe works: the creation of art is about communication. If an individual were to make art about physics, the art would still have to connect with people on some level, even though physics is involved!
The notion that an artist’s audience has to be smart enough to keep up with her-his work is ridiculous. I know I’ve talked about this before, but the artist who refuses to “dumb down” her-his work so that it interests viewers who might rather look at the latest photos of Britney than an up-to-the-minute cutting-edge abstracted exploration of the artist’s Freudian nightmares is missing the point.
It’s the communicator’s job to reach out to the audience as well as to communicate clearly and in an engaging manner. The potential viewers are under no obligation to take the time to decipher something which does not appeal to them on any level, since they are not the ones who are trying to start the conversation.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating the creation of simplified so-called art which has more in common with propaganda or advertising than with art. No, art can (and should) tackle difficult issues, but it must do so in an engaging manner. Viewers might very well appreciate a work more if they have to think about it some before they fully understand it--I know I do!--but the artist is responsible for making the effort seem worthwhile from the outset.
Ideally, the artist with the best training is the best at communicating, since that is, after all, her-his job. But the irony is that, in general, the more schooling an artist has, the more likely she-he is to rationalize about the work after making it instead of having an idea of the impact it will have before creating it. Too often, I hear fine artists talk about making work with the intention of “putting it out there to see how people react to it.” I want to tell the artist to go “out there” first, before you even think about the art you’re making! Connect with what’s “out there” (real people) and figure out how to communicate well. Then, and only then, go back to the studio and make a piece that you know will affect people. You may not know to the last detail just how your work will move people, but you should have some clue of it as you begin creating.
To my mind, folk art is more capable of relating to people than fine art. Though traditionally thought of as recluses and outsiders (which is not, by any means, the rule in the community), folk artists tend to connect with their audience more easily because their work often lacks the pretension--the remove from the everyday--which fine artists sometimes seem to embrace.
Sandra Rice’s Old Friends 1983
Sandra Rice is a folk artist who works in baked clay which she paints. Her figurines and environments are fairly small, and the subject matter she tackles seems to involve obvious metaphors, but I think there’s something nice and a little melancholy about actually seeing what two friends look like when they take off their masks.
This work doesn’t alienate me or try to force me to intellectualize. It doesn’t make me feel like I’m not well-read enough to even speak about it. Like all art worth looking at, it invites me to see my world again. It helps me to change my perspective.
Norman Rockwell’s The Connaisseur 1962
Norman Rockwell is another kind of folk artist that I admire. Not the kind who’s untrained or “brut” in his delivery, but one who’s folksy in his dismissal of an intermediary. He doesn’t need someone to explain what his images are about: they speak directly to the audience.
Rockwell is criticized for making everyone feel too darn good, for not being socially responsible enough, for becoming a parody of himself. I think that’s a shallow reading of an oeuvre which was never meant to be about how things are--or even were--but about an artist in conversation with an audience who participated whole-heartedly in the exchange.