One day I was simply questioning myself “If art is supposed to convey a message, then why does it not simply state the message?” I continued to ask myself this question and thought even about the occupation I have chosen to pursue, engineering. An engineer tries to convey what he is trying to say in a very precise and efficient manner whereas an artist would try to convey what he is trying to say using very abstract drawings, or photos and force the onlooker to take a more active role in determining the message of the creator. I kept pondering why artists would take this route in sending their message when a lot of it gets “lost in translation.”
As I continued to ask myself this, I though of a possible solution. There is a difference between stating a message and implying a message. By simply stating facts and percentages and a concrete sentence, what kind of emotional response can you really trigger in an individual that reads your work? Little to none. From an artist however, if you convey your message through characters on a stage, or melodies, or splashes of paint on a canvas, you allow an individual to become more attached to the work. They get a sense of the message but the message is not any longer just a message, it is known to the audience by the emotions invoked upon them.
Then I came to another conclusion. Although artists tend to try to deliver a message; it can tend to be a broad and general message. Through art, the overall message one person takes can be different than another. Although they can see and feel the general underlying message, their own individuality shapes the overall message they receive. With a clear and concise statement there is no room for this flexibility. The individuality of the individual is lost because they are no longer using their own beings to translate the message into their own thoughts.
I am sure there are other reasons why artists choose to convey their messages in the way that they do. Respond with your theories.
Ah, there are so many things to say on this topic!
For now, just one modest counter-point: you know, art doesn’t have to always have a “message.” I think it always has some meaning, but its meaning, its “raison d’être,” is not to be reduced to a clearly stated or suggested “message.” It doesn’t have to teach you something. Doesn’t have to be practical or useful. What’s a message of rainbow? What’s a message of Chopin’s prelude? What’s a message of your first kiss?
A piece of art, for me, often works as a kind of invitation – to share a moment, to ponder a question, to have a bit of adventure. Sometimes it’s just a beat of your heart. Sometimes it speaks of our longing for God. Hope against loneliness. Sometimes it’s just a space of silence.
Art is like a hobby. Some people enjoy drawing, painting, making music, etc. They do it to enjoy it, while some people see it a piece of art as something to enjoy. The purpose of art depends on the individual, but most art is stimulated by entertainment. I believe our class is encouraged to make and observe art to enjoy its presence.
Concerning Adrian’s point, I’d like to share an “excerpt” from “Arabian Nights”, by Mary Zimmerman, as performed by CCNY yesterday. One of the many stories told by Scherazade included that of Yishak (?) who wished to learn the beautiful melody of a famed musician, but would always keep his house shut when he played, so that no one else can enjoy the music except for himself. Would this still be considered art?