Romare Bearden, Quilting Time (1979) |
Is visual art or any art form meant for pleasure only? Can artistic presentations be a venue for the philosophical or the prophetic to emphasize protest?
These are rhetorical questions to me since the obvious reply is “Yes!” While Art for pleasure is not only legitimate but desirable given the need for delight in lives, I think that audiences satisfied with their own situations may not accept Art as either philosophical or as prophetic. Why? Because such Art may nudge an audience in an uncomfortable way as it pricks the conscience, or even if it just causes people to re-consider another look at the world; both could be a useless exercise as viewers reject it.
Besides, if one is assured already of their understanding of the world, why would they want an art presentation that teaches otherwise? For some it may be an eye-opener, a revelatory experience of a new outlook. But for others it may be a sharp razor that cuts without healing—though I should add that healing takes place with humility. In any case, there will be no winning of friends and influencing people that way; for an historical reference think of the plight of either Socrates or Jesus.
Now, there’s no need to place an artist at the level of famous philosophers and religious teachers (though I would argue famous artists do inhabit the same heights), but like A Square in the story Flatland the artist does have the task of trying to communicate another vision of the world, or a vision of another world. Often that means one is addressing those who only want the artist to affirm the status quo, and acting to the contrary will usually translate into some kind of trouble, minor or major. Minor, in that the artist will find it challenging to help an audience along to a new understanding; major, in that others may threaten the artist.
Western visual art offers many such artists. Usually, people think of the Dada and Surrealist movements of the last century. Going back another hundred or so years, one sees that Goya and Hogarth opposed conventional values in their work. There are others as the Expressionists after WW1, but up until the 18th and 19th centuries most visual art reflects the patronage taste for gods and heroes as artistic forms of all kinds often were the media of the powerful.
Eventually, a step into the working classes as a source was a new philosophical look at the world or, at least, new in the 18th century. Today, we take for granted still life, landscape, and scenes of people in mundane chores, but that imagery was a break from the past. Yes, there is a precedent for it in ancient villas and their decorative wall painting, in small figurines of workers, but directly confronting the viewer this way after more than a thousand years of angels, princesses, and knights marked a turn in thought. A protest against the medieval landscape? In part, yes, and it also was enthusiasm for the new way of understanding.
So, it continues today in the work of many artists who react to the unfamiliar ways science informs us about the world, who watch a population struggle for their independence and rights, and who attempt to evaluate the cultural role of technology. Big topics, topics that stretch an artist to the imaginative limit, and then Art becomes either an indicator of values or a call for change.