If Andy Warhol is a social critic, then I have no clue what he is talking about. The Last Supper, camouflage, self-portraits, Easter eggs, paint splatter, and urine paintings fail to, for me at least, send any kind of message.
I think that the artist, or any other individual for that matter, has the right to be a social critic but I don’t think that every artist must have a political motive to his or her artwork for it to be considered art. Sometimes a painting is nothing more than a pretty painting and a film is solely meant to be entertainment. The truth is, the viewer will never be able to know the artists exact thoughts while creating a piece of work. Most of our “symbolic interpretation” is just speculation.
We add attachment and meaning to artwork to explain things we don’t understand. This makes art very much like religion. Art connoisseurs migrate from all over the world to see exhibits. They can’t explain rationally the piece in front of them so they make up reasons why the sculpture or painter chooses to sculpt or paint a particular image. It’s the same with religion. People, Christians in particular, wonder why something bad happens and give it meaning. All of a sudden a tragedy becomes part of “God’s plan.” Just as the follower’s faith gives religion it’s power, the viewer gives the artist his or her power. Like religion, people blindly believe in art. They trust that it will reveal to them some profound truth.
Realistically, it is the viewer, not the artist who is the social critic. The viewer is the one who gives the art meaning and sometimes the viewer is wrong. In 10th grade, my English class read The Catcher In The Rye, one of the “greatest books of all time.” I however was not impressed. My teacher ruined the novel by forcing clichéd “meanings” on arbitrary details, like turning Holden’s red hat into cry for attention. Whether or not J.D. Salinger included the stupid hat with the intention of showing the reader something about Holden (aside from his fondness of the color red) who the hell knows?
My point is, the artist can do whatever he or she pleases. They can make a statement or not. Either way, people viewing the artwork, will give it meaning. It will become for the viewer some kind of statement because if the viewer cannot identify with the artwork, they won’t see the point. In today’s society, everything is given a purpose because admitting to not understanding is terrifying.
Every member of society who dares to think is a social critic. While some might argue that you need to be an impartial third party to see a situation clearly, it is the people at the heart of the community who feel what is around them and make the truest criticisms. Great artwork is not just seen, but felt by both the artist and the viewer. It is for this reason that I think that the artist must be member of the community they are criticizing to fully understand what the hell they are talking about.
