Thus begins some unsolicited theories and observations…

is art is an object or an effect?

This is something that a couple of us talk about a bit… the idea that art, in any form, is not merely a tangible object but an “effect”. I guess the long standing view is that art is something created by a person or persons that has never existed (even poor facsimiles would still possess 0.01% of something unique). So the thinking is that once it exists and one can look at it, touch it, hear it, smell it, taste it…then by default the art is the object, which we “observe” right?

What we discuss is that art “occurs” between the ‘object’ and the ‘observer’. That the term should not be limited to a finite object of creative matter, but to include the intangible field of effect that happens at the moment where the object ends and the connection with the person begins…

here is a drawing which illustrates this:

Now of course, it should be noted right now that our scholarly theories have no foundation in anything academic…other than the school of fine whisky, late nights and good beer!

But we think its pretty cool to think about music in this way:

Regular souls like us will never have a direct connection with many listeners…99% of it will be speaker -> ear of a wonderful stranger or video or whatever…but the if the idea of great focused creativity is to be able to accurately position a listener in such a way that they find themselves completely beholden to what your artistic intention, story or theme IS…then adhering to the law of averages, the more people that you can create a similar “EFFECT” with…then that’s when really cool art is happening…its not the music. That’s not the art in our discussion…it’s the effect is having on the person who we will never know…if any?! Now, of course many people will argue that interesting art will have a completely different effect on people..being subjective and all…which is cool…if that is the artists INTENTION (meaning, if they are deliberately creating a sense of ambiguity or surreality etc ).  But if it is not the intention and there is a general smearing of opinion from one interpretation to another…then has the artist succeeded in moving people in any intended way? Perhaps, but then is that just art for arts sake, relating only to the “object” of art itself and not the all-important connection, of which our patron souls seek? It sort of harks to the old adage of “if a tree falls”. If we made something in the dark, and we nor anybody else saw it or experienced it…would it still be considered art? Or simply something we made?

However, if we illuminated the room…then something happens right? Maybe that’s a bad analogy but it kinda makes sense to me right now.

I suppose the point is…that there is a feeling that great art / music / film / photography / sculpture…you name it, occurs when there is more than one of us (humans) present…that maybe totally untrue, but it’s the current thinking in the white parker camp. And that connection is what odd souls like us value and seek when we are working. I could go on and on, but it becomes circular quite quickly when the stream of consciousness is open and the fingers are not quick enough to capture it all.

ajs.

Posted in Uncategorized