The Apprehension of Art

2.1 Definition of “Art”

What does the term “Art” mean? What makes Art and who makes Art? Those question are highly depending on time, culture and place and never are to define universally. For each generation and place, the term “Art” includes different attributes and has to be analyzed from other perspectives. Nevertheless, some features are applying for all artworks in every generation and at any place. Art is medium of Artists to communicate. Communication cannot be eliminated from an artwork. “One cannot not communicate” said Paul Watzlawick and the phrase is also applicable for art: Storytelling, expression of emotions, attitudes or transferring facts are goal of images, symbols or sculptures is accessible in all human creations. While we can discuss the extent of how efficient this communication functions from artist to artist, alone the attempt to communicate through alternative ways than through the use spoken

language, can already be accounted as art. It then is the experiment of gaining access to an audience and a future. The addressed topics of artists vary in time and place. Nowadays, almost every element of the globe is represented in art somewhere. The dimension in which we see art today is more subjective and individual than ever, not at least relative to the highest ever population. We live in the most diverse and still connected population on earth ever. The quality and widely accepted appreciation of art has limits. Joseph Beuys, a German Artist, defined in 1973: “Kunst kommt von Kunde, man muss etwas zu sagen haben, auf der anderen Seite aber auch von Können, man muss es auch sagen können.“. [Translated into English: “Art comes from Studies, one must know about something to talk about, but on the other side it comes from Capability, one must be able to talk about something.”] Initially, this quote provokes a paradoxical effect, but the pure message of it reveals the definition of art in a very decisive way: Art is communication of and by someone/ -thing. Art is only such when the artist refers to a relevant topic, he knows about. One who does not have any knowledge is not able to communicate something with the world. The

word “Kunde” [which is hardly translatable into English; most likely with “Study objective”/ “Case”], describes the intellectual necessity of an artists’ creation. The content and function of an artwork is making art relevant, not its’ aesthetics. This means that content must be expressed and simultaneously a context must be generated. A successful artwork communicates content and makes communication education, entertainment or distribution of perspectives, theory or knowledge. In addition, Joseph Beuys’ quote also considers another aspect of art that is not as easy to achieve. Everyone might know something to talk about but not everyone is capable to express it. This condition, the capability of saying something, refers to the medium the artist uses to communicate. “Art” is then such, when a medium presents successful communication. The artists’ background and his ability correlate and together define the requirements of art: Content and medium. Neither aspects can be excluded, however, both have to be of quality and of cohesiveness. The medium must represent the content and the content must represent the artists ability to use a medium. In addition to the quotes’ explicit meaning, there is another feature, in context with Joseph Beuys’ life:

He was a German artist who experienced the Second World War and who lived in Germany when the art scene suffered a time of censorship, surveillance and limitation. He was serving the army and had not had the chance to express his artistic devotion until the wars’ end. As part of the main population, he knew about their experience of art: Naivety and uncritical thinking dominated the notice of artworks. Art was not able to fulfil its’ main purpose: It always I equally the audience and the artist who are involved in an artwork. Creator and recipient need to interact through any medium. Spoken language and Art are rarely understood by every human. But any observer must sense an emotion or get a message. If someone understands the content and context, determined by the artist, the communication is successful. If a medium never reaches an aware audience, it cannot be art in J. Beuys’ understanding: The interactive feature misses. The communicators around the artwork; artist and audience, are behaving similar as in a spoken conversation. The German psychologist Friedmann Schulz von Thun created a model of communication that explains language as the transferral of emotions, facts or theories. As those elements are part of art, the model can be applied

on art equally. Language in spoken word has four levels: Content, appeal, relation and self-revelation are features of communication (model by F. Schulz von Thun, 1981). Those levels, existing in art, are as the following shows: The artist must have to have relevant content (cf. Joseph Beuys’ quote) and must be able to generate an appealing character by finding a suitable medium for him and audience. In addition, what we find in the quotes’ implicit message, the artist should define the relation between him and world: It can be an educational, questioning, inspiring or exchanging character, this message has. And lately, the artist communicates something about himself when speaking through art. When J. Beuys says: “being capable of saying something”, he assumes that the creator is aware of himself and thus incorporates self-revelation.

The term “Art”, today as much as in the stone age, is based on communication. While depth, intellect and quality are not to define generally, the main focus of art lays in the transferral of messages.

2.2 Art as communication in various contexts

The understanding of art as communication is fundamental. However, there are art movements that seem to question this thesis. It is obvious that the demonstration of power in Ancient Greek Art or the provoking features of Dadaism are created to communicate. But looking at a movement like Bauhaus, the thesis can come to its’ limits. Some involved designers might have not wanted their creations to serve as communication: Design in furniture or architecture should be practical, timeless and sleek, not containing a message. Efficiency, rationality and quality dominated over aesthetic or meaning. John Berger, referring to the Red-Blue Chair by Rietveld, explains that “Mathematical proportions are exactly calculated and its implications attack in a logical manner a whole series of established attitudes and preoccupations [of art]” (About Looking, 1968, p.127). The critic questions this movement, however, concludes that there are interconnection aspects, that make rational and seemingly only functional works being artworks. Not in the first instance, but as soon as we recognize that “the aesthetic of the hand-made, the notion that ownership bestows power and weight, the virtues

of permanence and indestructability, […or] the fear that technology threatens culture […]”, designs like Rietveld’s chair gain a character of communication (J. Berger, About Looking, 1968, p.127). The value of seemingly more practical and efficient artworks can grow even higher because of its’ wider range of use and interpretation. This example demonstrates how diverse and deep the aspect of communication goes and that it always depends on who creates and who observes with which intention a medium.

2.3 Art as proof of conscience

When we assume that art is communication of two or more people, we take a consciousness of our communication partner for granted. The artist assumes that while he creates something about the world he experiences, that people who share this consciousness about the same world are going to observe. Neurologically and physically, no one is able to prove a conscious mind. A radically theory is that only our own brain can be defined as conscious and we never can prove that our fellows observe something, not to mind the same reality. What others see, feel or think might not resemble our own impressions at all. However, when we consider

art as medium, connecting several people, we could recognize a similar apprehension of the world, accounting for several people. Connected emotions to a medium and to a covered topic, make creator and audience realizing that certain elements strike, move or have relevance in the world. “The individuality of the thinker and the artist cannot be brushed aside or undone” (cf. J.Berger, About Looking) and every individual generates unique emotions and associations. “Yet if he [artist] accepts such a view of the world (the world as unquestionable scheme) […], he makes his own harmonious visual schemes out of it.” (cf. J.Berger, About Looking). The artist invents new depictions of the world which are relating but never identical to reality. And yet, an audience is able to receive a message, a radial sequence of thoughts and connects it to the world he observes. This bilateral apprehension can guarantee that the other side of an artwork (Audience or artist) is connected to and aware of the world equally. I am not alone, having a conscience view that can be translated into more than spoken words and superficial evidence. The artist is able, as the observer is, to understand, to convert ideologies into another sphere. It might be to say that language can also prove the consciousness of