Art is Communication

Art is communication.

Communication is the creation, organization, and/or translation of sensory information or stimuli from one or more living beings to another living being or beings.

To put this in the context of humanity, communication exists when one or more human beings articulates an aspect of one’s world view into a vehicle which another person can decode, with varying degrees of sophistication depending on that person’s capacity for said degrees of sophistication.

Let us assume that the preceding statement is a formula, much like an algebraic equation: ax2 + bx + c = 0, where a, b, and c are real numbers and a ≠ 0. This formula applies in these situations:

1. Communication exists when one person organizes information in the form of a news article, given that person’s understanding of the events or ‘news’ in question. The information is viewed by others, most importantly an editor, before being published, distributed, and consumed. Upon consumption, the ‘recipient’ selects aspects of this vehicle to interpret, calling on his or her own powers of reason. The person is then left with some impression of the ideas presented in this vehicle (very often incongruent with its orginal intention) and thus is affected by another human being. Communication has occurred.
2. Communication exists when one person composes a musical work, such as a song. The composer possesses a certain understanding of the nature of sound, then proceeds to manipulate it to suit his or her purpose. Upon performance of the ‘song,’ the ‘recipient’ interprets aspects of this vehicle (in this instance, sound), again left with some impression of the original thought of the composer. To reiterate, the recipient’s impression of the vehicle is not necessarily required to be congruent with the composer’s intention. At the most basic level, the creator and recipient can agree that each of their respective brains has interpreted energy in the form of sound waves and electrical signals. Communication has occurred.
3. Communication exists when a person has artificially manipulated elements into a vehicle that we would refer to as art. This vehicle is received through one or more of our five senses, converted into electrical signals, and sent to the brain. Again, this information is interpreted, both basically and cognitively, leaving the viewer with an impression that he or she would otherwise not possess. Communication has occurred.

This argument/formula can be applied to the mechanics of a conversation between two people, or the release and receipt of pheremones from one animal to another. This is an all-inclusive definition of the purpose and principle of our understanding of the English form of the abstract concept we refer to as Communication.

In relation to art, if one is to accept the premise that art is communication, then one must apply a potentially infinite number of complex criteria when evaluating and understanding art.

On one side of the spectrum, the viewer can attempt to understand and interpret a work of art drawing from only the information inherent in the work of art in question. This can be considered our ‘gut reaction’ to art, our initial impression, the unconscious way in which we immediately evaluate and many times decide if we like it or not. Many times, this is entirely independent of the artist’s intention.

On the other end of the spectrum, one perceives this work of art as an entity that shares a mutual existence with oneself in relation to the universe. There is information inherent in the work/entity itself that can be interpreted, but does not answer all of the questions about why it exists. The viewer acknowledges that this entity is not eternal, but that events transpired that were integral to this entity’s existence. If the viewer is so inclined, he or she is forced to ask questions about this entity’s existence. The question can be as simple as “What is this made of?” The questions can also be as complex as “Who is the person who made this?” “How did she fit that in here?” and “What kind of life would this person have led that would have make the existence of this grotesque object necessary?”

The former mode of assessment is limited, in that the viewer intentionally adopts key aspects of evaluation while simultaneously omitting others. Here is an example:

The viewer walks into a gallery, armed with his education, his intellect, his powers of reason, and the understanding that he is walking into an art gallery. Upon viewing a work, he then applies his knowledge of art history (minimal or extensive), his own self applied level of expertise in judging the value of art, and his own theory of what constitutes art. Simultaneously, he omits other levels of evaluation: cultural and social context, intent, possibilities or limitations of the space, the personal journey of the artist, etc.

Another example is more explicit:

A man walks into the Museum of Modern Art, sees Jackson Pollock’s Number 1, and is disgusted. “What is this? Dripped paint? I could do that! My KID could do THAT! Why would anyone consider THAT art?” Simultaneously he is unaware of Mr. Pollock’s ‘traditional’ art training, his ability to render and paint representationally, , his struggles with alcohol and depression, the series of events leading up to Abstract Expressionism, the notion that the work is a record its own making, and the understanding of how little money he was paid in comparison with how much his works are worth today.

This viewer is not ill equipped to look at or interpret art. The art exists to interact immediately with the viewer; visually, aurally, etc. It is when the viewer makes judgement, for or against, without attempting to ask these other questions, that he or she is in danger of not being able to fully appreciate the existence of art. This is not to say that true appreciation and understanding is attainable. There are too many questions to ask. What is important is the attempt to ask these questions, which is in itself the quest to understanding.

As artists and critics, we often talk about context. In fact, one might argue that this entire theory is put in the context of human thought and interaction with the universe. All of art has a context, but to limit the parameters of that context undermines the very nature of evaluation and understanding itself.