2008 Fall: Theoretical Constructions in Contemporary Art

I agree with Duchamp that, in the end, it is the spectator that determines an artist's place in history. Thus, art history determines an artist's fame. However, I would argue that fame is not always a measure of "greatness" or "skill." Fame does not equal "greatness." Duchamp says, "Millions of artists create; only a few thousands are discussed or accepted by the spectator and many less again are consecrated by posterity." I think it could be argued that every artist, simply by making something which will last beyond his or her death, is "consecrated by posterity." The work of art itself persists beyond both the artist and the spectator.

Duchamp says, "The result of this struggle (to make art) is a difference between the intention and its realization, a difference which the artist is not aware of." But why wouldn't an artist be aware of this difference, especially as it regards a work of art they're personally invested in? Artists are thinking creatures, and may well be self-aware. I hope I'm not interpreting Duchamp wrongly, but I tend to think that most artists are aware of the difference between his or her intentions for an artwork and the realization of that artwork. Not only that, but an artist may realize an artwork which exceeds his or her intentions for that work.

While it seems to me more important that an artist love his own work than to be shown love for his work by other people, the spectator puts a work of art into a social context, where it can be judged by the world at large. The spectator is necessary in the artistic equation, for without the spectator perhaps there would be no work of art. (If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, perhaps it does not make a sound...). However, I think I would argue against Duchamp and say that the "creative act" is still done by the "artist alone," and it is only the act of judgment, not creation, in which the spectator engages.

I think Duchamp’s reading is a beautiful description of the relationship between the artist, their work and the role of spectatorship in the process. I enjoy Duchamp’s description of the art coefficient and how he doesn’t hold this coefficient to strictly “good� art, but allows it to pertain to all art, of all qualities. I agree with Rowan though that the artist is capable of realizing the difference between intention and realization. For me, when my final work is what I deem as “successful�, the difference between what I had envisioned and the final outcome of the artwork can be the most rewarding part of the creative process. Of course the other extreme applies to when I feel the work is unsuccessful. Then the coefficient becomes the most challenging, even painful part of the process.

I found Duchamp’s statement that millions of artists create but only few thousand are discussed or accepted to be somewhat cynical. Perhaps during this time the statement was more realistic, but I have difficulty being convinced that this is still true. There are still millions of artists creating, but with the up rise of the internet and all of its webs forums, blogs, social networking sites I think that artwork of all levels has become much more accessible to view and discuss. One no longer has to be a member of a prestigious art circle in order to get exposure.

Duchamp’s emphasis on the artist’s intent and the viewers role in realizing, deciphering and interpreting a work of art reminds me of lot of what Barthe discusses in his essay. Duchamp points out the spectator’s key role in bringing the piece from intention to realization. Barthe’s perhaps puts more emphasis on separating the creator from the finished work, but also stresses the importance of the viewer in the discussion and interpretation of the text. Like Duchamp says, the artist can shout he is a genius, but it takes the spectator to give the work social value.

DuChamp defines the “art coefficient� as a “difference between...intention and...realization.� This distillation of the creative process is described quite accurately and eloquently. This gap always exists, and to me is the all-important mystery of art. Without this gap, the viewer might as well be looking at a billboard or reading the artist statement. There would be no need for the viewer to at least try to interpret the mystery and beauty in the work, and therefore no need for the viewer at all. Instead, this is where the viewer layers his perspective into the piece, and consequently adds to the depth and meaning of the work. Without this need for the viewer’s contribution to the work, art would not be necessity of culture. The manner in which DuChamp explains this phenomenon is beautiful and profound.

The fact that the spectator determines the posterity of the artist is to me a lot less interesting. It is true to a large extent, but I also wonder how much popular culture contributes. Also, I agree with Robin that DuChamp’s idea that only a few of many working artists are accepted and discussed is either cynical or outdated. Perhaps this is true to the general population, but to many people who purposely expose themselves to art, there are many, many artists who are both accepted and discussed. This leads me to wonder how a general population as a whole, which is often moved by pop culture, chooses an artist upon which to endow prosperity. Also, how do we define prosperity now that pop culture has its own icons? Is Michael Jackson famous because his viewers decided that his music was worthy of fame, or was that determined by the entertainment industry?

Perhaps it is William’s writing on Postmodernism that is causing me to think this way. He writes, “Advertising plays a role... in slowly eroding the artistic standards - and with them, the basic coherence - of what the culture industry produces.� Is our contemporary culture going to be defined in history books by its pop culture icons, or its artists?

I appreciate what Duchamp says about the art coefficient; “In other works, the personal 'art coefficient' is like a arithmetical relation between the unexpressed but intended and the unintentionally expressed.� I agree with Robin and Mel that this is an exciting and rewarding part of the artistic process, though sometimes frustrating. It can be illuminating to learn what others see expressed, unintentionally, in one’s work. Complicating this ‘art coefficient’, the way a work of art is interpreted is very context specific, depending on the culture and era of the viewer, and how the art is presented. Duchamp’s own work, along with his fellow Dadaists and surrealists, is interpreted differently now than it was when it was made -- it’s not nearly as shocking to our modern eyes.

One point where I think both Barthes and Duchamp go too far is the idea that the artist is merely a scripter or medium. Ducamp says, “If we give the attributes of a medium to the artist, we must then deny him the state of consciousness on the esthetic plane about what he is doing or why he is doing it.� This to me indicates a complete lack of choices made, an absence of free will in making the art. The artist is a machine. But wouldn't it decrease the potency of a work of art if you were told it was made by a machine, that the aesthetic choices were decided by a computer? Rather, a viewer thinking about the artist hands creating the work is a valuable part of the experience.

Though I think it’s true that an artist is serving as a sort of translator of culture, weaving preconstructed ‘phrases’ together, it’s clear that there are many choices made during the creation of a work of art. A photographer makes choices about what to show, what not to show, and what moment in time to show. He or she is serving as a spatial and temporal editor. I think the same goes for any art—music, video, sculpture. Artists are making conscious choices, and it seems odd to me to pretend that they are not. I don’t think it weakens Duchamp’s and Barthes’ arguments to acknowledge that the artist may have ideas and intentions, but they shouldn’t necessarily matter as to the actual reactions of viewers.

“Art� is hard to define, and thirty individuals might define it thirty different ways, but I believe that at its essence, “Art� is essentially “communication�. This is why I believe whole-heartedly with Duchamp, that the audience or spectator completes the artistic process the same way a transceiver completes the broadcast of a transmitter. Is an artist’s intention realized if the artwork is never viewed, an artworks message is never communicated without another to communicate it to. This is why I believe art history to be incomplete, throughout the course of humanities journey surely there are more artists and artworks lost to time, never shared, and never had had a chance to become part of the canon of art history, than the artists and artworks that comprise the canon.

But times have changed since the days of Duchamp. With the democratization of technology and information through the Internet, more artists than ever have more means than ever to get their artwork out there and communicate their messages. There are more physical and virtual venues and environments for artists today to exhibit, share, communicate and be consecrated into posterity.

I did however disagree with Duchamp concerning the ‘art coefficient’ of an artwork. Duchamp states that the artist is unaware of this difference between intention and realization, but I would have to argue that this view or statement is untrue. From my own personal experience as an artist and a student of the arts, I have learned to embrace compromise as a natural part of my art making process. Many, if not all of my artistic creations are compromised versions of their original ideas. Early on, in my undergraduate work I realized through my limitations, whether they were artistic or financial, that holding fast to original concepts can become very frustrating, and even become the barrier that prevents the intention from becoming the realization. As artists, we should not let how we want to communicate, be what prevents us from communicating at all. I believe that most of us are aware of these compromises, and in this respect, Duchamp was mistaken.

I have to admit, at first Duchamp’s quasi-mystical descriptions of the mediumistic artist emerging “from the labyrinth beyond time and space� made me roll my eyes a little. I also disagreed with the assertion that “artistic execution of the work [must] rest with pure intuition…� Certainly there are some artists who work with scarcely a trace of self awareness, but I believe there is validity to artistic process that incorporates degrees of conscious awareness. However, as I read further, I became more sympathetic to Duchamp’s language.

I agree with Bart that Duchamp has made an important point by defining the Creative Act as an act of communication in which the spectator is an important participant. Indeed, the artist’s creation exists in order to address and affect an audience, and the feedback of that audience helps to determine an artist’s reputation and in some cases their creative direction. In the midst of this dialog, the artist truly does act as a sort of medium, synthesizing ideas and aesthetic tropes from the chatter of the outside world, distilling them into a creation. As several other students have mentioned, Duchamp does an excellent job of describing the discrepancies between intention and realization that define a creative process (though I feel he goes a bit too far in trying to turn that mysterious discrepancy into a measurable mathematical ‘coefficient.’)

I also believe that Duchamp oversimplifies the process of aesthetic evaluation and “consecration� enacted by “posterity.� He suggests that there is an “esthetic scale� by which art can be judged, and that work which scores high on this scale will be canonized while work which scores low will eventually be forgotten. In fact, there are also numerous social, economic, and political factors which influence the reception and historical contextualization of art. In other words, the spectator’s perception of aesthetic value is almost always influenced by factors such as an artist’s reputation, the venue in which the work is presented, etc.

Some questions that arise from Duchamp's writing for me. Does art only exist in the mind? Is art like a contract between two sentient beings? If an artist makes art alone in the woods (attic/basement) and nobody else is there to see it, is it still art?

I agree with Bart that art is essentially communication. Words, either spoken or written, can communicate so little of what is inside us. Art is that missing link in the 'triangulation' of connection between two sentient beings.
Art is a way to touch something beyond us outside the rational everyday thought process. That is why I disagree with Duchamp when he says that "art history has consistently decided upon the virtues of a work art through
considerations completely divorced from the rationalized explanation of the artist." When an artist attempts to rationally describe what he or she is trying to say, he or she is pulling art down into a level of language and communication that Art in its true form cannot be translated into!! ha ha! take that Duchamp!
Art is a form of communication that only exists in the mind, and when it is attempted to be quantified or made into an equation or coefficient, it slips away from us, makes us look like a fool. It is above and beyond that. The times in my life where I was blown away by something, afterwards trying to explain it at great lengths, I never did it justice, I felt like I was tarnishing its magic. I will never forget an old improv theater teacher of mine who said 'the funniest things to me in life are those things that I can never put my finger on why they are so funny" The same can applied to art and music. The artists that speak so powerfully to me do it with colors and chords of sound.

I do not agree with the TS Eliot quote saying that 'the more perfect the artist, the more completely separate in him will be the man who suffers and the mind which creates' No! The more communicative and powerful the art the more it is A HARMONY BETWEEN THE TWO. Too much art is all intellect and no heart. To hurt and to feel bliss is human. Why not put just as much raw emotion into the artwork as intellect. Find that harmony between the two. Human beings are animals just as much as intellectual minds.

For someone who claims that the artist is a medium through which ideas flows from his/her subconscious and that they can not truly understand "what he is doing or why he is doing it", Duchamp seems to be conscious of his own art-making process. I am not sure however, if this holds true for all. As with Kandinsky's essay, Duchamp is speaking in absolutes about very subjective issues. I can relate to what he is saying and I see certain aspects of it my own process, but I have to believe that there are many different approaches to making art.

I found Duchamp's ideas about the role of the audience to be interesting. As with many creative endeavors in the public sphere, the creator brings things into existence and hopes that it will be embraced and enjoyed by others. However many famous artists are usually backed by a handful if not one important critic before being excepted by the larger public. For example Clement Greenburg and his championing of American abstract expressionist. These people are in essence telling others what is good and important. I think the artist can play a role in this. If one happens to have a convincing conversation with one of these people about their work it is possible that they may embrace it. I liken it to popular music. Clear Channel owns most of the major radio stations and they have control over which bands get pushed and which don't. I don't mean to say that Jackson Pollock is equate-able to Kid Rock but I do how ever believe that many brilliant artists and musicians a like are lost in history due to there inability to connect with the right people.

The idea that the artwork is only complete after the viewer has experienced it, is an interesting one. Much like Barthes writing, Duchamp states that the viewer completes the creative act by "deciphering and interpreting" the artwork. For the most part I agree with this statement but I also think that is possible for an artist to have differing ideas about who the work is for. Some people make certain work solely for themselves as part of a therapeutic practice, so in that case the audience is ones self.

Duchamps quote “The creative act is not performed by the artist alone�, is a beautiful idea. This releases certain pressures form the artist to perform. I agree with Duchamp and how he is trying to purify art as an intuitive act, taking away the persona of the artist. I have a little difficulty in separating the “Self� completely from intuition, we are each unique so our decisions on using intuition and the outcomes of intuitive moves are somewhat controlled by our experiences in being human and our place in society.

The relationships between artist, art and spectator is on my mind a lot, since being asked why I make art in undergrad. I have realized that I make work for the viewer, not for my own gratification. This is a state of pure intuition that when reached does make the better work. When I am surprised by my own work I know the work has achieved it’s own language. The work has come from intentions and decisions fighting over each other into a space where “Play� is predominate in the outcome.

The idea of Esthetic Osmosis makes me smile on the inside. My goal is to imbue the art object with the processes of making and existing and here Duchamp sums up what I want for my work. What I want to know now is, can I want this or does it just happen. Is wanting something to happen for the viewer, taking away that spontaneous view of the spectator. I don’t know if my wants are part of what is removed from the pure art making. I assume my wants do disintegrate as I enter the “Zone� of making and allow the intuitive to control. In conclusion to this writing I feel it is succinct and expansive in its point about the spectator as being a large part of art acceptance.

As I graduated from a program called Interactive Media and now enrolling to
the program called Time and Interactivity, my main focus on my creative act
is the interaction between my work and the spectators. Duchamp's idea of
“art coefficient� hits right in the center of my interest. I
particularly liked his line, “...the creative act is not performed by the
artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external
world...� Duchamp might not have meant spectators to directly come in
contact with the creative act, but most of my work rely mostly on the
presence of the spectators.

One of the goals that I try to accomplish in my interactive media is also
mentioned in Duchamp's writing as “arithmetical relation�. I try to
make “unexpressed but intended� piece that reacts to the spectators so
that they will “unintentionally express� something. The relationship
between “intention� and “realization� Duchamp mentioned in the
writing I do not understand in full context, but I get the sense of
non-self-consciousness from his piece of work. The “Fountain� for
example, is definitely a mischievous intention that plays with spectators'
realization.

Duchamp mentioned that any art is art, either good or bad. Together with
the idea of coefficient art and arithmetical relation, this brings an
interesting point about “art� that scares and at the same time
fascinates me. Because in these definitions, a piece of scrap paper
crumpled up and lying besides a trash can, could be considered as an
“unintentionally expressed� act of creation to the spectators. Under
his definition, absolutely anything can be considered as a piece of art.
What then, is my work if I manage to create something that expresses
something I intend to express?