Art and Meaning

A large number of influences, which no one could hope to find own completely, led to further explorations of the symbol-object dualism in art. There is no doubt that John Cage, with his interest in Zen, had a profound influence on art as well on music. His friends Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg both explored the distinction between objects and symbols by using objects as symbols for themselves - or, to flip the coin, by using symbols as objects for themselves. All of this was perhaps intended to break down the notion that art is one step removed from reality - that art speaks in “code”, for which the viewer must act as interpreter. The idea was to eliminate the step of interpretation and let the naked object simply be, period. (“Period” - a curious case of use-mention blur.) However, if this was the intention, it was a monumental flop, and perhaps had to be.

Any time an object is exhibited in a gallery or dubbed a “work”, it acquires an aura of deep inner significance - no matter how much the viewer has been warned not to look for meaning. In fact, there is a backfiring effect whereby the more that viewers are told to look at these objects without mystification, the more mystified the viewers get. After all, if a wooden crate on a museum floor is just a wooden crate on a museum floor, then why doesn’t the janitor haul it out back and throw it in the garbage? Why is the name of an artist attached to it? Why did the artist want to demystify art? Why isn’t that dirt clod out front labeled with an artist’s name? Is this a hoax? Am I crazy, or are artists crazy? More and more questions flood into the viewer’s mind; he can’t help it. This is the “frame effect” which art - Art - automatically creates. There is no way to suppress the wonderings in the minds of the curious.


Göedel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid - Douglas R. Hofstadter

Publicado no Facebook em 15 de Agosto, 2017