"Art is essentially the affirmation, the blessing, and the deification of existence." - Frederich Nietzchie
"A work of art has no importance whatever to society. It is only important to the individual." - Vladimir Nabokov
Two very different opinions to be sure but it does raise the question, what is the role of the artist in today's culture? Does he even have one? Should he even have one? For me, these two different quotes are both true. The first being that art (and creativity in general), is something essential to human development. This urge has been with us for as long as we have walked the earth. Something possessed those early men and women living in the caves of Spain and southern France to depict those images that reflected their daily lives. Something possessed them to carve those little trinkets that they chose to wear somewhere on their bodies and/or bury them with their dead. Some other ancient cultures were driven to mark their bodies and others were driven to make idols and other representations of their gods or fellow humans. It's something essential to being human.
On the other hand, in some societies in the past (and not so distant past) have been essential in raising the voice of the individual. Art contained messages beyond reflecting mythological stories and religious beliefs, often political in nature. These artists felt the urge to relay a message to his fellow man. Something so important and dangerous in some cases a lot of artists were either imprisoned, forced into exile or killed for it. The list is long on societies in which this has occurred. For these artists, creativity is social and the role of the artist should be social. For them, the role of the artist is to lift the spirit of the people and/or to rage against any form of injustice that they perceive in their given society, sometimes at great risk to their own lives as well as their friends and families.
But what is the role of the artist in America today? Does he have one beyond personal expression? Is there a social role for an artist to play, and if he does, does it even matter to anyone other than to those who it matters to? Or is it merely to obtain some sense of "fame" and "celebrity"? Is his purpose to be "rich & famous"? In American life, does the artist even matter at all anymore? I guess the answer to these questions really depends on where you stand with regard to what art is and whether or not it even has a purpose at all.
For artists and art enthusiasts, it has a very important role to play. For others, and there are many, it is merely something to hang on your wall when decorating their apartment, if even that.
In America today it seems to be a double edged sword. For many artists, especially young artists, there is this huge desire for celebrity and fame. They are the ones who "look" the role of the "artist", adopting all the clichés and mannerisms (and interests) they feel an "artist" should have. It's almost as if they are part of the work as well as whatever it is they produce (that is if they even produce anything). I'm sure you've seen them, those who wear all the wacky clothes, have a funky haircut and/or appearance, designed to illustrate that they are artists. This is not a criticism, per se. Some people just like the look. Others, it's all important. It is all important for some artists that they be recognized not for the work but for the fame it will potentially bring them. They want to be seen at all the parties and have their faces in the society pages and some will even go as far as self-consciously creating the most controversial work in order to gain that attention they so desire. There are many cases of this. Sometimes the work is self-consciously social in the sense that it's almost too easy to find a topic to address that will easily offend someone and bring attention to themselves first, then the message, which in my view, is something that has usually been said a billion times over without any new twist on it. (Some of the work in 1999s "Sensations" exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum being a perfect example.)
Then there are those who really don't care at all for fame and celebrity and see the work as being the most important thing. They want attention as well, yes, (we all do, otherwise we wouldn't put ourselves out there) but it is the work they seek attention for, not themselves in the sense that they could care less whether or not they are recognized on the street. They want nothing to do with any of it.
Then there are those artists who were very subtle in their rebellion. The now legendary artists such as Pollock, Duchamp, Picasso, Dali and a host of others. Their work challenged a lot of different notions but it was created in a time when what they did was truly revolutionary and it truly did challenge the accepted notion of what art is But what about today? Are there any artists out there like this? What is to be done that hasn't been done a thousand times before? There are thousands and thousands who are trying. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But it is possible.
In America, where everything is a business and where everything is ruled by the bottom line, what role does the artist truly play? How does one stand out among the millions who are doing exactly the same thing? What is it that elevates one artist to the level of innovator and the other to "also-ran", even though the work is just as good in most cases? Have things become so tired that it doesn't even matter anymore? Does it really all boil down to personal expression and personal experience? And as a society, where a great number of people could care less about art; where a great number of people do not see it as a viable "living"; where a great number of people think you are not an artist unless you are famous and making tons of money; where making money and living the high lifestyle is more important; does it even matter at all anymore unless you are one participating in it?
In a society where a "great" film is judged on weekend ticket sales, where a "great" song is based on how many "units" it sold and where a "great" novel is based on how many weeks it spends on the New York Times Bestseller's List, I have to wonder whether or not American's appreciation of art even exists in any real sense. In the end, I suppose it boils down to what one's interests are. For those of us interested in it, those of us who pursue it, the topic matters. For those who do not, this topic is irrelevant and means nothing. That's just the way it is and one does have to be careful about crossing that delicate line into snob zone, something I do not wish to do and hope I am not doing. But it seems to me that the only time those who do not seem to care about art in this society ever take notice at all is when something controversial comes to their attention. Then they stand up and take notice for better or for worse as if all of a sudden they care and have an opinion on it. Maybe this is why so many artists take this route. Maybe sometimes that is what is needed to bring art to those who would normally never even have a look or thought about it.
I make no claims to have an answer here. Just a lot of questions. For me, personally, it's all about personal expression, no matter if the work ever gets noticed. It's something, like those early humans in those caves must have felt that made one in particular walk hundreds of feet into the back of the cave, in a place where no one was to see it, to blow ocher around his hand to leave his hand print, seemingly just to do it. That's what it's like for me and the more people do that, the better life is. Art is a window into existence and how people perceive that existence. It is a reflection, and sometimes a very faint one, on who we are, for better or for worse.
