11/04
Journal Entry
“Successful art
captures our immediate attention, and repeatedly draws us back to reveal itself
over time”
I remember some years ago taking
several bus trips along the same route in an unfamiliar foreign city. The first trip was vague. I was overloaded with size, shape and color,
blurred with details. The second trip
found awareness of detail unforeseen in the first. Each subsequent trip found streets descending
further, local faces becoming familiar and a deeper sense of understanding that
would serve as a template for the next trip.
Each passing revealed a richness of detail unforeseen in the last.
I’ve
experienced the same, I believe, with art.
My reactions and perceptions of a given piece often change drastically
over time; with increased exposure comes increased understanding. What should this tell the artist?
I presume that many view and judge
art on a single occasion. The trip to The
Louvre, National Gallery, the local gallery opening, these are often single
exposures. Impressions of size, shape, and
color illicit immediate reactions. These
immediate reactions are crucial to building an audience for one’s work because
they delineate the one-time viewer from the frequent viewer or supporter.
For now, given our knowledge of
novel experiences, how can the viewer come to understand a piece of art as the
frequent traveler comes to understand the foreign city? How can he process the vast amount of
information coming at him if he only views the piece in a single sitting? The truth is he probably can’t. An exception would be the hyperaware art
enthusiast who sees a piece of art much differently than the novice, not unlike
how the frequent traveler surely navigates the city with knowing
efficiency.
This raises
a couple important questions. Why do our
perceptions of art change over time, and what are the implications of this
understanding for the artist?
First the
why. Why does our intimacy with a given
piece of art grow with exposure?
Although I do not propose this hypothesis as grand theory, meaning our
reasons for interest in art may be far beyond what I propose (spiritual,
innate, etc.), for purposes of this missive I posit much of the reasoning has
to do with the way in which our brains process information. Mounds of research in Cognitive Psychology
suggest the human brain processes information in quite a systematic
fashion. We experience a given stimuli,
we hold that information in our short-term memory, we attach the useful
information to existing networks of information in our long-term memory, and
what is not attached is quickly forgotten.
Given this premise one can begin to
understand why a first encounter with a piece of art can leave us with limited
understanding, particularly for the novice.
The novice eyes the canvas and is overloaded with information. Their mind automatically starts searching the
networks of their memories attempting to make sense of what is before
them. However, they can only process a
given amount at one time, and so they use shortcuts (cognitive heuristics,
activated schemas) to draw conclusions, or to make sense, of what they are
seeing. A first look at the Mona Lisa
reveals a smirking woman. The novice
viewer sees Mona’s feminine features and upturned lips, and past experience
(stored information) tells them this is a smiling woman. But of course, subsequent trips reveal
incongruities, deep symbolism, and irony.
A recent
visit to a painting critique class found me pondering these ideas in more depth
after I made a comment that my perceptions of the piece in question were based
on a single viewing and thus my critique was one composed from limited
understanding. I found in searching my
own impressions, and listening to others, that what we offered was not so much
an insightful critique, but an impression or attempted communication of our
immediate feelings.
This brings
me to the next point. Insofar as art is
utilized as a form of communication, the artist needs to be aware of the difference
between their and their audience’s awareness and perception. Ultimately, if the artist is attempting to
communicate something beyond their own experience to some viewer she should be
aware of what immediate communication is leveled upon the often “one-time”
viewer because the immediate communication will likely dictate the likelihood
of future exposure. With the exception
of the impulse buy artists who want to make a living must find ways to increase
exposure to their work.
Now perhaps
this is becoming a statement on what makes successful art. At this point a huge argument arises. Art is in the eye of the beholder, yes? However, in the present context it seems the
concept of success as it relates to art has to do with how the artist is understanding
the audience. In most cases the audience
is likely composed of individuals who briefly peruse the majority of art they
cross, only stopping to further investigate those pieces that capture their
attention; the pieces that stand out from the others.
With this said perhaps success can
best be exemplified by the piece that at once captures the awe of the viewer,
and continues to evince a more in-depth portrayal of subject matter to the
frequent visitor. Successful art captures our immediate attention, and repeatedly draws
us back to reveal itself over time.
Mark
S. Jesinoski
11/04
