The work and its public

Sunday, March 29, 2009

The work and its public

There are objects in my environment. Not all are works of art, but some are. Somehow, my attitude towards the works of art must be appropriate, and if no appropriate attitude from the viewer is to be had, then the work of art suffers.

In other words, the work of art needs to be appreciated.  As I look around the room I see various objects.  My watch (a nice enough watch, but not a work of art), my belt, a compact disc, various papers, and books.  When I look over at the paintings on the wall, I must, if I am to appreciate them as art, adopt more than just a casual approach.  We want to consider how it is that the non-creator reacts to the work of art.There are at least two ways, it seems.  There are some works of art that require a performance.  In such cases the performer is the necessary public that the art needs in order to be complete.  When I go to the opera, the opera is performed, and we sit and watch in the way we are supposed to watch.  Yes, keep your cell phone off, but more than that, the audience is supposed to be engaged.  We are supposed to follow the story, and as well recognize when the performers are worthy of special applause, etc.  So, two sides to the public with respect to the work of art.  The performers, and the audience, and both are somehow necessary to complete the work, to bring it to life.

There are times when performers are trying to fool an audience (a con game for example), but a true artistic performance is not that.  No one on either side is fooled by anything.  The performers are trying to present what the artist produced, the audience is trying to appreciate both the work and the performance.  This is not done by giving up and being fooled.  No one needs to think that the woman on stage singing the role of Violetta really has tuberculosis.  Apparently some of the early audiences for La Traviata had trouble appreciating the suffering of Violetta, and the singing of the soprano.  Tuberculosis being rather incongruous with such singing.  But there is something silly here, what?

There are many ways of being an audience, or performer, and all of these are ways of providing the public that the work of art needs if it is to become an aesthetic object.  There are ways of engaging a painting or sculpture, or play, novel, or poem.  For any of these we can be an audience, or a performer.  We do our part, and are rewarded with a work of art, or better to say, rewarded with whatever a work of art can bring to us.  After all, we are discussing the work and its public.  The public provides performers and audiences (witnesses both).  The work of art ought to provide something as well.

Comments
Comment from: Alex D.

It’s a bit more perplexing with performance art - is it the performance or that which is being performed?  Of course it is both, but to what extent each, and what of the relationship between the two?

Oh, but I have left out the observer, which assumes there is some standard of aesthetic experience independent of the observer.

But how can you get there if the observer is thinking about tuberculosis during a performance?

on Mar 30 2009 @ 06:11 PM

Comment from: Burst

Well, yes, some standard of aesthetic experience independent of the observer is more or less where we are heading.  The work must give us something.

on Mar 30 2009 @ 09:34 PM

Comment from: Burst

Of course, we are supposed to think about tuberculosis insofar as the work of art asks us to think about tuberculosis.  I remember one performance in which I ended up thinking that the audience had somehow contracted the disease (given all the coughing going on).  At that point I am no longer involved in any side of an aesthetic experience, and the work of art (while it remains a work of art) has no chance of being an aesthetic object.

on Apr 21 2009 @ 11:29 PM

Page 1 of 1 pages
Post a Comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. « Previous Entry | Main | Next Entry »