Post: “Who is the Artist?”
Today while discussing the value of music, some of you referred to it as a language, a language which can convey emotions. Jay Greenberg when asked referred to music as a form of math, which gives you a structure not an emotional meaning, and as Dan M. asked: “Can we ask for the salt in music?”
Gombrich in Art and Illusion tells us that:
“Language grows by introducing new words, but language consisting only of new words and new syntax would be indistinguishable from gibberish. (p. 274) To evoke emotions in others the artist must give us a reference point… a good artist must have to communicate with his audience: the ability to develop an idea effectively so it can be understood with minimum of effort by the viewer.”
Most great art shifts our point of view, allow us a new perspective on our world, it also reinforces our humanity, and thus can evoke an emotional response, not only a rational interpretation. “Art itself becomes the innovator’s instrument for probing reality.” (Gombrich p.275)
It therfore stands to reason that some art forms relay on a collaberative effort, rather then individual process in presenting to an audience. The form is set by the originator and the emotional interpretation is given by the presenter. In Dance the Chriographer and the dancer, in music, the composer and the musican, in theater, the playwriter and the actor. An originating thought and its interpretation are what we the audience encounter. Since we cannot hear the music from the notes on the page, we need the musician to play it for us. Does the Original thought count? Is the interpretation of outmost importance? Who is the artist in this case? the one who created the first image? or our photograph of it. In many cases the originator and the interpreter are one and the same, therefore we do not encounter this dilemma.
Post your own thoughts on the matter.
