The Core of Art

A number of artists I know consider themselves story-tellers. They firmly believe that art is to be found only in stories. Some even say that if there is an artifact that is not story-based, the artist would do well to create a story to accompany the artifact in order to attract an audience, or, at the very least, incorporate a story about how the work came to be. That may or may not work.

There is, however, art that is not story-based: many still-life images, both painted and photographed, are not story-based, for example. A number of sculptures are not story-based, nor are many musical compositions and choreographic pieces. All of this raises the question, what is at the artistic core of a piece of art if not a story?

Let’s take as given that art works seek to engage the audience and communicate something. The next step is to determine how they do what they intend to do. In narrative forms, that seems to be story—at least in most cases. The story carries the audience along, keeping members engaged until the something is communicated. Sometimes this takes the entire length of the interaction, and sometimes it’s all just leading to a single moment.

Non-narrative forms, on the other hand, do it differently. Some of these forms present the whole of what they are and what they are attempting to say all at once. These are mostly photographs, paintings, and sculptures. Some of these may be story-based, but many are not, and present whatever they have to present on first viewing, although multiple viewings may be warranted. Other non-narrative forms, such as dance and music present their content through time, but in a non-narrative fashion. Unless stories are added to the presentation of such pieces, they rely solely on what is presented to carry their messages.

So are all arts just different in the ways that they communicate with their audiences? Of course they are. As we have seen, some rely on stories to carry the message while others rely on mere seeing. And, of course there are all the possibilities in between. If this is the case is there anything that the arts have in common? I believe that there is, and I think it is that the core of a piece of art relies on a moment of connection between the piece and the individual audience member. Sometimes, there are many such moments in a piece; sometimes there is only one. The number is immaterial. Also unimportant is whether there is a story or not, or the nature of that story if it does exist. The important thing is that there is at least one such a moment in an artistic piece, so the piece can speak to the audience member.

And those moments do not have to be profound. There are all sorts of levels of artistry, and some have very important things to say, while others are of lesser profundity. What is important is that there is a moment of connection, a moment when the piece speaks directly to the audience member, and the audience member recognizes that connection. It’s why we appreciate art.

Author:
Date: Sunday, 19. May 2024 22:47
Trackback: Trackback-URL Category: Audience

Feed for the post RSS 2.0 Comment this post

Submit comment