A boy stands, staring at a three-paneled painting. He shakes his head in confusion and tries to lean in to get a closer look. Why is the boy so confused? It is because he is staring at a three-paneled painting that is completely white.
1951.jpg)
How can this piece (White Painting by Robert Rauschenberg) be considered art when it doesn't even seem like the artist put much thought into it. This is a subject of debate to many, but the real question underlying this debate is: What is art? Well, first lets take a look at the aspects that make up the foundation a piece of art.
The Artist
A painting cannot exist without the strokes of its painter, and a sculpture cannot exist without the chisel of its sculptor. With this in mind, one of the most important aspects of a piece of work is that there is an artist that has the intention of creating art. The creation of art cannot be like the fabled chocolate and peanut butter run-in that sparked the idea for Reese's Cups. I am not trying to suggest that an artist has to know exactly what the finished piece will look like before they begin. I do argue though that they must have put the canvas in front of them with the intention to create.
Looking back now on the "White Painting", we see that this piece does have an artist named Robert Rauschenberg (pictured above), but that alone doesn't make something a piece of art.
The Canvas
Art must have a canvas on which it can be displayed. I don't mean the literal canvas of a painter, but rather a medium that allows for the artist to express himself/herself. A dancer's canvas is her body, while a musicians canvas is her instrument. Art cannot be just an idea that is passed along without being expressed in some physical way (although, I would love to hear an argument against this).
In respect to the painting in question, its medium was oil on canvas. Keep this in mind, because it actually becomes the key to the answer of our question.
The Audience
Why would an artist create something that would just sit in the corner of a room and fade? That doesn't make much sense does it? There is always an audience in mind and a message to communicate when the artist is creating. It could be like "Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano (picture below), who wanted to communicate how the actions of church officials are ruining the face of the church itself. It could also simply be for the artist himself who wishes to have a brief glimpse into his own mind.
Alright, so why is Robert Rauschenberg's "White Painting" a piece of art? Yes, it does have an artist, a canvas, and an audience, but it goes a little farther than just that. Robert didn't just have the intention of painting the canvas white just to do it. He painted the canvas white using oil (remember when I told you to keep that in mind) because of its ability to reflect the tone of the lighting in the room. He had the intention of making a piece of art that would continuously change depending on the mood and the people in the room.
What the boy didn't see was the shadow that he made as he leaned in to take a closer look. What the boy didn't see was that he was a part of the artwork itself.
This is a comment that was post on my Facebook by someone I know, and I wanted to share it with you guys:
ReplyDeleteI think this painting took more insight from the artist than many I have experienced. He wanted something everchanging and with that must have took a magnitude of thought. It takes an artist to find art in what many see everyday...their own shadow.
However, when i first began reading this without knowing the true meaning of the painting I was still touched by it. To me an artist's purpose is to evoke emotion, thought, and wonder... no matter if a stroke of paint was casted or not. When looking at a blank white canvas, one might see hope or sorrow, one might seek importance, but find irrelavance, one might finally see themselves or who they wish to be. A blank white canvas can mean nothing at all or could reflect the world. Depending on the everchanging moods of it's audience.
Good post. I like the three pictures you included in the article. It does cover three aspects of art. What about music though. It is surly art but it has no canvas, or does it? Also there was no concrete definition of art. A single sentence one at least. Overall, good article.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this post. The argument was very clear and persuasive. The three pictures were a great touch and really enhanced the point you were trying to make. Why just focus on visual art, though? The collaboration of the artist, canvas, and audience was clearly defined.
ReplyDelete