Political Work

There is a story that an officer of the Nazi occupation forces visited Picasso in his studio, where Guernica was hanging. The officer asked, "Did you do that?" to which Picasso replied, "No, you did".

The painting may be one of the most famous examples of political art, and yet stands aloof from the debate on whether art is guilty of glorifying those atrocities that it chooses to depict. We have all seen work that through its intention to 'never forget for a single instant' somehow slides into uncertain ground through its stylization, commercial aspirations, and aesthetic sanctimony. From this discomfort stemmed the question whether art should exist after Auschwitz. We can all be grateful to Hans Enzensberger for the retort that art's continued existence is not a surrender to cynicism. Art must resist such arguments, accepting that its situation is one of paradox. Art can present suffering, but this suffering can not be ignored nor dismissed, Adorno explains in his essay "Commitment". Hegel's consciousness of adversity allows continued growth of the consciousness; in the lecture on Jacob Boehme, Hegel quotes him as saying: "without adversity life would have no sensibility nor will nor efficacy, neither understanding nor science".

The problem with work that only presents the suffering is that it makes no motion. Kant insisted that art could not have an end. A work of art that only presents the artist's particular notion of horror does not acknowledge the other quality of art, which is that its very expression points to life in all its available fullness. It is therefore an ineffective work of art, even if an effective work of political dismay, or at worst propaganda.

Picasso's work succeeds–as let us face it, does most of his work because the man was after all a bloody genius–by depicting the atrocities of fascism while also presenting the freedom that art permits. He was neither shy of his political outrage nor the possibility his work offered beyond that limited scope.

Free Play

There are days when I am at a loss, confused, disoriented, uncertain. If I have any clarity of mind, I try to go to a museum. Not to see a favorite work as that would require too much effort of appreciation in a time of duress, but rather to wander until standing in front of one piece, the stern edges of my discomfort are stilled.

Breton, in his own text Position Politique de la surréalisme, affirms Hegel’s definition of art saying, “l’objet d’art tient le milieu entre le sensible et le rationnel. C’est quelque chose de spirituel qui apparait comme matériel” [the art object holds the middle between the sensible and the rational. It is something of the spiritual which appears as material]. Art is the bridge between the senses and the mind, by moving from one to the other. It permits a moment of communication between the artist and the other, and from the artist to the many, and the one to the many. Art manages the miracle of bridging the self and other, the trappings of the mind and the freedom of thought, without rejecting either.

The surrealists imagined that the strength of the image appeared from the artist’s willingness to paint two seemingly irreconcilable ideas together. The image was thus a creation of the artist’s willingness to reveal the conflict of being. This seems so reasonable that I am occasionally at a loss as to why it required theoretical consideration, discussion, proof, but try to remember that such mental efforts can be fun too. Pierre Reverdy said that "L’image est une création pure de l’esprit. Elle ne peut naître d’une comparaison mais du rapprochement de deux réalités plus ou moins éloignées. Plus les rapports des deux réalités rapprochées seront lointains et justes, plus l’image sera forte–plus elle aura de puissance émotive et de réalité poétique..." [The image is a pure creation of the spirit. It (the image) can not be born of a comparison but rather of a coming-together of two realities more or less apart. The greater distance and just relation between the two things brought together, the greater the force of the image–the more emotional power and poetic reality there will be]. Rather than comparing one state of being to another, the artist brings these states into dynamic engagement, permitting the peculiar parts of a particular moment to participate in a dialogue with the known and accepted. The more removed the two forces at work in the artist are from each other, the more emotional power the image will offer. Though this was stated in relation to surreal art, I do not see how it does not apply to art in general and even see Kant's idea of free play at work.

Unfortunately I do not often remember how easily I can get out of the stagnancy of my mental muck, believing I guess that sitting in it will somehow show me something other than mud. Occasionally, I guess I could sit in it long enough that something starts to grow, but even with Spring beginning to bloom that seems like a long wait. Art jars me, even as it seems familiar, and so moves me on to the next thing, reminding me to play a little, freeing my efforts from frustration.

Kant like art

The critic, Ms. De Gustibus, has been asked by the journal, Art Works, to produce a review of the new show at Gallery Ouden Art in Chelsea, New York. Ms. De Gustibus must therefore provide her editor with a summary review, making the object of her attendance at the opening not a theoretical discourse with the works shown, but criticism as an art, that is an attempt to put thought to words within the limits of her own artifact making- ink on paper. Ms. De Gustibus has much to dispute in the artifacts on the walls but finds a couple of the pieces beautiful. She gazes at them for some time, despite the jostling and socializing crowds, moved to try to understand what she sees and so very much appreciates.

Over a glass of cheap Chardonnay, Ms. De Gustibus has an unsuccessful conversation with one of the artists as to what inspired him to produce this work she finds beautiful and how he did so. He also tells her that he is teaching a workshop at the famous Fabula Art School where he places a painting at the front of the room and tells the students to produce their own drawing for the day. Despite his banal tone and inane teaching method, she is reminded of Kant’s artistic genius who cannot explain what he does but only offer it as an example to others. It seems less genius-like in person. Concerned about what she is going to write for this review, Ms. De Gustibus returns to the blank face of her flat screen monitor besides which she has framed the degree that provided her with the knowledge to consider such works of art.

She refers to different texts in developing her arguments about each work, every show, and all the artists she reviews. Ms. De Gustibus is generally well respected in her field as a person of conscious good taste whose reviews are considerate explorations of the works and always well written. After a long night of typing, Ms. De Gustibus has been able to describe the works she found beautiful and present them within constructs that others might understand in viewing the art. She has offered a witty discussion of the event and the artists that by all accounts she deems successful. Her editor does too and pronounces her a genius on a deadline!

Ms. De Gustibus is an example of Kant’s genius as much as those who inspire her, whose work she sees at the gallery. She must work hard to produce her own criticism, as an art object, and so works through the night developing her language to beautifully express the beauty she has seen. Criticism as an art is not an easy task, and observing recent art reviews shows that it is rarely done in this modern world. But this paper has been merely suggesting that criticism can be an art, and at the very least can aim to be.