Black Bucket Essays
Volume 2, Issue 1
“The value of art is in the observer."
- Agnes Martin
Eileen Wold
In an interview, Jackson Pollock once said 1.“Painting is a state of being..painting is self-discovery. Every good artist paints what he is”. In this framework, the creation of art is an act of self expression and leaves very little consideration of the viewer’s experience. The residue of such an activity would produce an artwork that is self reflective, much like a mirror. But much like a mirror facing another mirror, this runs the risk of resulting in an repetitive journey for those that are not in the center. Just one dataset repeating over and over. In this scenario, the singular viewpoint leaves very little to interest an audience. So it is fitting that an artist such as Pollock would not consider one. When artwork is the result of a moment of the artist searching inward, the audience is reduced to a subservient role to the maker and his own expression.
With Pollock, there would be no reference to a perspective outside of his own and therefore no tangible way for a viewer to enter the object or image. Unless the viewer had a personal relationship with the artist (or an imaginary one of celebrity worship) there would be no desire to gain understanding. The viewer is considered irrelevant and so their thoughts or modes of understanding are also meaningless, reinforcing the idea that this would be a repetitive journey of empty signifiers.
Perhaps in contrast to this, we look at another artist producing work around the same time as Jackson Pollock and Agnes Martin to gain another way to understand this statement. Artist Mark Rothko referred to making art as 2. “The Elimination of all obstacles between the painter and the idea and between the idea and the observer”. This approach hinges on the viewer being a whole part of the process. Perhaps the key to completion. The final step in making, would be viewership.
It would seem that when the viewer takes center stage in this way, the artist has work to do. For example, if an artist were thinking about a future or imagined viewer during the act of creation, they would contemplate how one would physically interact with the work, how it may sit in a room or landscape. Things like scale, and light, and time would matter. Perhaps the artist is also confronted with the idea that the work may be viewed by people in different situations, in different time periods, from a variety of cultures. How does this change the assumptions the artist might make while creating a work of visual art?
This simple awareness of assumptions can feel like a generous act to those looking at a work of art. A line, color, form, or sound that asks specific questions or seeks universal truths can transcend time and place in a way for the viewer and artist to acquaint themselves with the others perspective. Unlike the mirror facing in on itself, it becomes a simple pane of glass where each party looks through at the other in honest observation where both parties must work and dig to reach understanding. Is that the potential in art that Agnes Martin was talking about? Each party, both viewer and creator, assuming that acknowledging that the other exists has much to teach us?
I also question if the idea of art having value at all implies meaning. This generous act of getting to know both ourselves AND others through the making [Rothko] is in stark contrast to the earlier viewpoint [Pollock] but could make for a more interesting journey into the meaning of objects, art, and design.
1. In an interview (1956); published in Conversations with Artists, by Seldon Rodman, New York, Capricorn Books, 1961, pp. 84-85
2. In Tiger’s Eye, Vol. 1, no 9, October 1949; as quoted in Abstract Expressionism Creators and Critics, ed. Clifford Ross, Abrams Publishers New York 1990, p. 170
Volume 2, Issue 1
“The value of art is in the observer."
- Agnes Martin
Eileen Wold
In an interview, Jackson Pollock once said 1.“Painting is a state of being..painting is self-discovery. Every good artist paints what he is”. In this framework, the creation of art is an act of self expression and leaves very little consideration of the viewer’s experience. The residue of such an activity would produce an artwork that is self reflective, much like a mirror. But much like a mirror facing another mirror, this runs the risk of resulting in an repetitive journey for those that are not in the center. Just one dataset repeating over and over. In this scenario, the singular viewpoint leaves very little to interest an audience. So it is fitting that an artist such as Pollock would not consider one. When artwork is the result of a moment of the artist searching inward, the audience is reduced to a subservient role to the maker and his own expression.
With Pollock, there would be no reference to a perspective outside of his own and therefore no tangible way for a viewer to enter the object or image. Unless the viewer had a personal relationship with the artist (or an imaginary one of celebrity worship) there would be no desire to gain understanding. The viewer is considered irrelevant and so their thoughts or modes of understanding are also meaningless, reinforcing the idea that this would be a repetitive journey of empty signifiers.
Perhaps in contrast to this, we look at another artist producing work around the same time as Jackson Pollock and Agnes Martin to gain another way to understand this statement. Artist Mark Rothko referred to making art as 2. “The Elimination of all obstacles between the painter and the idea and between the idea and the observer”. This approach hinges on the viewer being a whole part of the process. Perhaps the key to completion. The final step in making, would be viewership.
It would seem that when the viewer takes center stage in this way, the artist has work to do. For example, if an artist were thinking about a future or imagined viewer during the act of creation, they would contemplate how one would physically interact with the work, how it may sit in a room or landscape. Things like scale, and light, and time would matter. Perhaps the artist is also confronted with the idea that the work may be viewed by people in different situations, in different time periods, from a variety of cultures. How does this change the assumptions the artist might make while creating a work of visual art?
This simple awareness of assumptions can feel like a generous act to those looking at a work of art. A line, color, form, or sound that asks specific questions or seeks universal truths can transcend time and place in a way for the viewer and artist to acquaint themselves with the others perspective. Unlike the mirror facing in on itself, it becomes a simple pane of glass where each party looks through at the other in honest observation where both parties must work and dig to reach understanding. Is that the potential in art that Agnes Martin was talking about? Each party, both viewer and creator, assuming that acknowledging that the other exists has much to teach us?
I also question if the idea of art having value at all implies meaning. This generous act of getting to know both ourselves AND others through the making [Rothko] is in stark contrast to the earlier viewpoint [Pollock] but could make for a more interesting journey into the meaning of objects, art, and design.
1. In an interview (1956); published in Conversations with Artists, by Seldon Rodman, New York, Capricorn Books, 1961, pp. 84-85
2. In Tiger’s Eye, Vol. 1, no 9, October 1949; as quoted in Abstract Expressionism Creators and Critics, ed. Clifford Ross, Abrams Publishers New York 1990, p. 170
