Art for Art’s Sake…

It’s a phrase that we hear all-to-often, am I right? Everyone has an opinion on the subject, and every single opinion is correct for that person. Different strokes for different folks yeah? It may be obvious from my previous statements, but I am a full supporter of this type of art-making. This subject has come to mind this week mostly because of the second reading, “Viewing the World as Process”. I finally have figured out that the author of Conversations Before the End of Time is not a supporter of this! In fact, she “has been involved with trying to change that framework, to shift our ordinary understanding of art away from value-free, autonomous thinking” (Viewing the World p. 238). First of all, why does art for art’s sake necessarily mean it’s value-free? Isn’t there value in the process of art-making? The value in my own art becomes apparent to me after I start making art for art’s sake. There is value in the subconscious. Second of all, why would anyone ever think they have the power to change something like this? To change the way art is created or viewed…that’s ridiculous. It’s something completely different from science (a profession based on fact, and a profession she was trying to compare to artists). Art is something uncontrollable that exceeds words. That’s why I liked this Carolyn Merchant character a lot. She has this idea that yes, we are in an ecological crisis and yes, we do have a moral obligation to try to fix it, but as humans, not artists. I got the idea from her that art is relative. It will exist no matter what happens, and will probably only reflect change, not bring it.

This whole idea that art exceeds words has been creeping into my life a lot lately. I find my own art reflecting my opinion on the subject. I have become very interested in the idea that words don’t really mean anything. They seem to devalue most situations and limit my imagination and explanation for my work. I’m not really sure if this is what he was going for, but my feelings about words were what made me able to relate to Dan Powell’s work. His interest in text, language, and communication are clear from works such as these:

He believes that words are the basis of our culture…he is right, but i wish he wasn’t. The reason I chose these two works was because they show the range that he is capable of. One is from the studio, the other from his travels. From what I can take from his photos from traveling, he seems to be interested in portraying the sublimity in the landscapes found in the desert, and says that eastern Oregon is an especially good place to do this. When compared to his studio work, this is quite the range in style. To think about his studio work, I would like to address some concepts brought up in the first reading, “When You’re Healed, Send Me a Postcard”. There were a lot of interesting ideas brought up in this chapter, but the one that I found most relevant to Dan Powell’s work was this idea that artists going to their studio to work is therapeutic, and that therapy is too self-involved and should be projected outward instead. There are a few problems that I have with this idea. Here it goes: most things that we do can be skewed as selfish if you try hard enough. Anything that anyone creates, whether it be art, relationships, a nice meal, or money that we earn, can be seen as selfish in a way. So why is spending time on ourselves a bad thing? Why must we guilt people out of spending a little quality time with themselves? By doing what an individual needs to be happy, this makes them much more tolerable to the rest of the world. I say go for it! And as we can see from many talented artists (such as Dan Powell), the work created in the studio tends to be different from the public approach. Both work is good, I don’t know why we all have to be choosing sides here. I have no doubt in my mind that we can create art for art’s sake (the therapeutic approach) while still having it hold meaning to the rest of the world.