TIME AND THE NATURE OF ART
Does art change over time?
An artwork is an object of beauty that generates an emotional response in the viewer. I am of the opinion that an artwork needs at least one conscious creator; therefore, I am not of the belief that a mountain or a leaf is an artwork. Please note that I am not using the words art and artwork interchangeably as they are two different things. An artwork is an object that has a creator, whereas art involves: artists, artworks, audiences, and aesthetics. Let us go back to one of the first recorded debates on the value of art, to two of the most influential philosophers of all time: Plato and Aristotle.
Plato thought art had an effect on our emotions, and no effect on our ability to reason. For Plato, this was a problem as art encouraged people to put more emphasis on emotions and feelings rather than facts and truths. It also represents fiction as truth. Take this brilliant oil painting titled The Treachery of Images (1928-29) by French Surrealist artist, Rene Magritte; the words translated state: This is not a pipe.
Rene Magritte (1928-29) The Treachery of Images, Oil on canvas, Los Angeles County Museum of Art
The majority of people who look at this artwork will be confused by it and will say things like, “If it’s not a pipe, then what is it?” The artwork will make them feel stupid when they are eventually told, “It’s not a pipe – it’s a painting.” Stupidity quickly leads to either laughter or anger. Whatever their emotional reaction to a representation of a pipe, Plato saw this problem as dangerous and called for the censorship of art. Obviously, he saw art as powerful. I will point out here that some 2500 years later, art is still censored. Our political leaders see the power of art and are fearful of that power.
The last exhibition I remember being censored here in Australia was the Sensation exhibition, which did not even make it into the country. In this case, it was the threats of Australian citizens to the National Gallery of Australia, calling for the censorship that brought it about – not government. Christians were afraid of the harm it would do to their religion. It is not the first time religion in Australia has censored Art. In fact, 11 out of the 12 members on the Australian Classification Board all identify as Christian. What we have here, is people inflicting their values and value systems (such as religious views) on to others. That definitely has not changed over time, despite the fact our values do. At the time of the Sensation censorship, the gallery’s director, Brian Kennedy said this:
“The exhibition has been completely enveloped in a furore, over issues which are actually not about the works of art, and this question of the works of art has not really got into it all, and instead issues of - legal issues and funding and ethical issues have come into play, after what are effectively a political and religious controversy.”
This perfectly exemplifies Plato’s views as we have people acting entirely emotionally rather than logically, and that emotional outpouring lead to the cancellation, which is what Plato proposed over two-thousand years prior – the censorship of art.
Chris Ofili, The Holy Virgin Mary (1996)
The object that caused a sensation was Chris Ofili’s, The Holy Virgin Mary. The mixed media artwork features Ofili’s representation of The Holy Virgin Mary. I was living in Brooklyn at the time of this exhibition, before it was to come to Australia, and I went along to the protest, in support of the artwork and freedom of speech. The atmosphere around this art was intense; something I doubt I will ever be a part of again. The mayor of New York took The Brooklyn Museum to court because they exhibited this artwork which he said, offended him. It was Christians, and possibly racists that hated the artwork the most because Ofili depicts the Virgin Mary as black – not white. And also because for her breast, used to feed Jesus, Ofili used elephant dung. The background is also littered in pornographic photos of women. What’s there to be offended over? During the exhibition, one protester and anti-freedom-of-speech / social-justice-warrior type, painted over the artwork in white paint – effectively censoring it. For those who do feel offended by this artwork think about this; Elephants – and their dung – are considered sacred and spiritual in some African cultures. Ofili is African, raised in England, where he went to a Christian school and received spiritual guidance. Is it possible that this work is spiritual? Either way, there is no denying people acted just like Plato said, that they become emotional and dispose of logic and reason.
Here is an interesting point; about a decade later, Ofili’s artwork returned to New York City for an exhibition, and no one cared. So what changed? The artwork was still the same, so it must have been the audience that changed; their attitudes and values affected their perception and response of the artwork - both times it was exhibited in NYC. Art is aesthetic in nature, and aesthetics are about the beauty of an object and the emotional reaction to that object. Therein lies the part of art that changes over time and it is not art itself, but our emotional reactions. True, people have had emotional reactions to artworks throughout human existence; that part has not changed; but the emotions we feel do and why do those emotions change? Because we are making value based judgements and those are based on our social and cultural values and they change over time. So art has not changed and never will, but our moral and ethical judgements will.
Vincent van Gogh (1889) Starry Night, Oil on canvas, Museum of Modern Art, NYC
Plato’s student, Aristotle, took a different view on Art. He said we need to feel and have emotions as those are part of what makes us human, and Art helps us experience them and as such, experience life. Aristotle said Art can be therapeutic. Take for instance Van Gogh’s Starry Night, which is my favourite painting. My reaction to Starry Night had absolutely nothing to do with its meaning or interpretation or concepts or any involved thought process; I love this artwork because of the way it made me feel when I saw it. I felt emotions I have never felt before and the experience was wonderful. My eyes marvelled at the saturated colours and textured paint, moving through the starry sky, following the dashes of loaded paint. And they moved around and around; the painting has a rhythm to it that became hypnotic. And I would look down at the town seated below the sublime starry sky and feel awe.
Mark Rothko, Four Darks in Red (1958), Whitney Museum of American Art
I had a similar experience with a Mark Rothko painting. Here is a guy I never got. He paints rectangles. Big deal. Who cares right? It is a rectangle! But then I saw one in real life; not just a small reproduction in a text book. His painting was huge. A deep red colour. In a room all on its own with a black leather bench in front of it. I sat down and looked. I was immediately drawn into the red. Layers upon layers of glossy transparent paint to make the most vivid and truly deep red you will ever see. But a strange thing happened that I had to retroactively make sense of. I had a spiritual journey in this artwork. It sucked me in and I became one with it. I lost myself in there. My ego vanished; I stopped feeling emotions; the suffering of the everyday stopped. It is a sublime artwork that is spiritual and emotional beyond belief. The emotional journey this Rothko took me on was like Aristotle said we needed; therapeutic. We all need to feel emotions and one way to trigger them is through art, music, film, and poetry. These are used as emotional tools we can use to adjust and enhance our lives. Seeing that painting opened my eyes into another realm of existence; into another state of being. I am not implying I am enlightened, but I do possess an insight that I did not have before. These two paintings are beautiful beyond belief. But what of beauty? Does beauty in art change over time?
There is a commonly held phrase taken as truth: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But that is not true. Art is not subjective – it is objective. We are all repelled by the look and stench of human excrement, pollution, and garbage. And we are all attracted to beautiful people, sunsets and sunrises, mountains, and golden beaches. Aesthetics being objective and not subjective has been proven true by neuroscientists. The main issue of aesthetics is, making value judgements. To make a judgement means to engage in morals and ethics. Ideally, art should be free of politics, but unfortunately, people are judgemental; and our judgements are concerned with good and bad. And that is what changes over time in art. We all know what is beautiful and what is not, but making judgements is based on the culture, society and timeframe we are living in. And these things change over time. Beauty does not change with time but aesthetics do.
I began this article with a question: Does art change over time? In summary; no. The aesthetics of art changes through the course of time and that is due to cultural and intellectual perception. It is not art that changes, but us.
Scott Barnard