Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2018-19/Truth and Art

Heather, Ambre and Georgie's discussion page, from a collaborative google document:

Truth in Art and the Art in Truth https://www.florenceacademyofart.com/the-truth-in-art-and-the-art-in-truth/

What is Contemporary Art? Terry Smith

Blurb:

Who gets to say what counts as contemporary art? Artists, critics, curators, gallerists, auctioneers, collectors, or the public? Revealing how all of these groups have shaped today’s multifaceted definition, Terry Smith brilliantly shows that an historical approach offers the best answer to the question: What is Contemporary Art? Smith argues that the most recognizable kind is characterized by a return to mainstream modernism in the work of such artists as Richard Serra and Gerhard Richter, as well as the retro-sensationalism of figures like Damien Hirst and Takashi Murakami. At the same time, Smith reveals, postcolonial artists are engaged in a different kind of practice: one that builds on local concerns and tackles questions of identity, history, and globalization. A younger generation embodies yet a third approach to contemporaneity by investigating time, place, mediation, and ethics through small-scale, closely connective art making. Inviting readers into these diverse yet overlapping art worlds, Smith offers a behind-the-scenes introduction to the institutions, the personalities, the biennials, and of course the works that together are defining the contemporary. The resulting map of where art is now illuminates not only where it has been but also where it is going.

https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo6823475.html

Art as a means to truth or knowledge https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-art/Art-as-a-means-to-truth-or-knowledge “Art has even been called the avenue to the highest knowledge available to humans and to a kind of knowledge impossible of attainment by any other means.” “Painting and sculpture, not being temporal arts, cannot depict action, and action is all-important in the representation of human character. These arts, as noted earlier, contain depictions of persons (real or imaginary) only on a knife-edge of time. Still, sometimes something may be inferred even from a knife-edge. The late self-portraits of the 17th-century Dutch artist Rembrandt do seem to reveal an agonized yet sometimes serene inner spirit, suggesting that there are flashes of human insight to be found in depictions of human beings in visual art.”

relevance and value changes over time why do we need art? why do we need true art? relevance in time

2. Intention

Intention decided by artist vs. institution - Georgie There exists the debate surrounding the intention of the artist in the production of artwork. This can arise at various stages of the production timeline: beforehand, when the artist is making the decision to produce, involving factors such as stimulus, material and scale; during, as the artist makes choices that dictate the outcome; and afterwards, when the artist must surrender control of intention to the institution it is displayed within and to those viewing it. Duchamp’s theory of readymade expands upon this, determining ‘that what is art is defined by the artist’ (1). Therefore, it is important to consider whether it is the artist or the institution that determines the nature and intention of the artwork. Do we suppose a piece is ‘art’ because it is displayed within a relevant institution? This idea was interrogated when two students left a pair of glasses on the floor of a San Francisco art gallery as a prank, only to be accepted by other visitors as displayed artwork (2). This incites conversation around the definition of art and its intention: would we accept, say, a simple chair to be deemed as ‘art’ if it was displayed in an art gallery? Was it intended this way by the artist? Surely if it was produced with the intention of being art, commenting on a specific issue or having a separate context, then surely it is ‘art’? Without the institution and thus depending on its placement, would we cast a second glance at the chair, questioning its purpose or significance? In this way, was the spurious installation of the glasses placed by the students ‘art’? They had not intended it to be, and yet, by inspiring conversation and reflection, perhaps it became ‘art’ in its own right? This therefore disregards Duchamp’s idea, that the artist determines what is art, instead placing the definition of what is art in the hands of the viewer.

https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/r/readymade https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/arts/sfmoma-glasses-prank.html

3. Authentic art vs. reproduction

Authentic art vs. reproduction - Heather Truth in art can further be explored through the discussion of authenticity. What is meant by ‘authentic’ art? The Tate Gallery describes authenticity as ‘a term used... to describe the qualities of an original work of art as opposed to a reproduction’ (1). An example of this would be the comparison between Classical Roman and Greek sculpture. With the expansion of the Roman Empire, a multitude of Greek art was introduced and favoured by the Romans, which lead to the reproduction of these statues to be distributed across the empire. To this day, archaeologists struggle to determine the authenticity of these classical statues, as the replicas imitate the originals exactly in style and medium (2). Hence, questions arise regarding art’s authenticity: are the reproductions still considered art? What is their consequential value? Is value based on the skills required to create the artwork, which could be the exact same as the original, or the authenticity and originality? There are times when reproductions are not meant to hold the same value as the original, for example the Parthenon ruins. [to be expanded] (3)

Analysis of value - Georgie The analysis of value raises wider questions of its own. Why is some art more valuable than others? Possibly this can be explained by social cohesion, that we universally agree that some art is more impressive than others, leading to the status of ‘masterpieces’. Therefore, value involves anthropological and sociological factors, since we assume certain art is incontestably impressive. The Mona Lisa is an explicit example of this. What makes it so remarkable, such that its insurance valuation was worth $800 million in 2017 (4) and its presence is arguably one of the main attractions of France, even Europe? Certainly for the profound nature of the technique for its time, and many other artistic factors, but also conceivably due to the self-perpetuating, ever-present crowds it draws and in fact because of its status as the most valuable painting in the world (4). For these reasons, the given value of artwork can be manipulated by a multitude determinants, such as anthropological factors like social pressure. William Burroughs summarises ‘nothing exists until or unless it is observed’ (5), demonstrating that numerous associative factors play a role in both the definition of what is ‘art’ and how its value is determined.

Authenticity today - Georgie: put after Heather’s writing on authenticity & reproductions Today, traditional artworks continues to be remoulded and commented upon within conceptual art. Wolfe von Lenkiewicz references to masterpieces and other figures of historical significance within his work to evoke the notion that artists are constantly and inescapably influenced by the art of the past. His exhibition The School of Night comments upon this idea of ownership and questions whether any artwork can ever be truly ‘authentic’ (6). Similarly, transcriptions of past artworks have the ability to suggest new and distinct ideas to those presented within the original. An example of this is Velazquez’s Las Meninas. Picasso alone made 58 transcriptions (7) in a variety of compositions, each remarking upon something different. Are these transcriptions authentic or original? They have reproduced the subject matter and composition of a previous work, but have arguably created something different and original. As suggested by von Lenkiewicz, isn’t all artwork variations of previous ones, whether an intentional and direct transcription or not?

https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/a/authenticity https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/rogr/hd_rogr.htm Debbie Challis, ‘The Parthenon Sculptures: Emblems of British national identity’, The British Art Journal, vol 7, (2006), pp. 33-39. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa#Theft_and_vandalism Robert A. Sobieszek. Ports of Entry: William S. Burroughs and the Arts. LACMA, (1996). https://www.saatchigallery.com/art/the_school_of_night.php https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Meninas#Influence

Roman vs Greek imitations Florence (?) Parthenon reconstructions in Athens Louvre (not art? recreation) (?) technology recreating art? (as in identical, texture details)

4. The depiction of reality as truth in art

Classical based, Pliny’s curtains and grapes analogy The concept of ‘Reality’ - an artificial social construction what is truth: reality? inner/outer truth? social agreement on what is true (eg: language is true because it is a social convention) or individual decision on what is true; so truth is about a decision. how can we represent truth? reality? does it need to be hyper-realistic or can it be more abstract? (matisse snail, mondrian truth: NY city) abstraction can bring other version of truth that realism can’t bring, other information can you ever have true reality? counter argument: conceptual (more about the idea of a truth than the visual The Treachery of Images, Magritte, the true art of painting (ceci n’est pas une pipe).

What is true art? - Ambre What deems art as ‘true’? Possibly it is when art depicts reality, thus regarding truth as reality. The correspondence theory of truth elaborates: "truth or the falsity of a representation is determined solely by how it relates to a reality; that is, by whether it accurately describes that reality” (1).

There exists two types of truths: those unanimously agreed upon and those that are individually accepted as true. Thus, if true art is the depiction of reality and if reality is truth, then true art is decided upon, either by the individual or the society. This may explain how masterpieces and personal interests in art emerge: masterpieces would then be socially agreed as such. It is what we consider, alone or as a community, as true art that will be true art. In such a scenario it can be determined that anything can be true art: if truth is either a social agreement or individual choice, then true art is both subjective and objective, as a sum of subjective truths.

Furthermore, how can we represent reality? If it is in direct imitation does this still omit part of the reality? Art therefore attempts to recreate reality in the best way possible. Is this by producing it hyper-realistically? Or can we accept an abstract representation? In this way, artworks such as Matisse’s The Snail and Mondrian’s New York City I could be more true to reality, as they interpret visual stimulus in unexpected ways. [Example about Pliny the Elder is so nice but not sure if word count allows for it? Also feel like we are going somewhere with abstract representation giving other truths then back to hyper-realism... Beyond this, what can we say of artistic illusion and imaginative art, when the purpose is truly to disregard reality? The painting competition by Pliny the Elder (2) exemplifies this: Zeuxis presented a true-to-real painting of the grapes, whereas Parrhasuis painted a curtain to fool Zeuxis himself. Whose art is more real? The one who depicted reality to its perfection of realism or the one who managed to fool his contemporary? The illusion of the curtain seems so real that it is mistaken for reality by the viewer, until we realise it is in fact the art. Thus, perhaps one has to be aware of a piece’s artistic status in order to judge its likeness to reality, and thus its truth.]

On the other hand, can art ever be ‘untrue’? Viewers interpret artworks and the truth they reveal in different ways, and therefore is it subjective and cannot be ‘untrue’; it is the viewer’s experience that is significant. In this way, art mimics life and remoulds it through the action of creation by the artist, through the artist’s eyes, presenting this outlook to the viewer, who consequently draws their own individual truths from the artwork. [not sure if “besides…” is necessary… I wrote it but does it seem necessary? Besides, no matter the truths regarding the art’s contents or context, it stands that the art - cognitively visible or invisible - is real because it exists and therefore perhaps there is no debate surrounding truths or untruths, as its existence is indisputable and thus it is real and true.]

add to this: Why does it matter if art is truthful or not ?If you are looking at the post-truth world what does anthropology, for example, have to say about this, or sociology? (from Clare’s email)

What does it tell us about truth or evidence? An “dangerous and shallow imitation of life”? – Plato The artist is “an imitator of images and is very far removed from the truth” – Plato …art used to recount history = biased as one person’s version of what happened, Interpretive reality, Truth can essentially consist of one’s opinion / reality

https://www.florenceacademyofart.com/the-truth-in-art-and-the-art-in-truth/

conceptual art in the correspondence theory of truth Historically, most advocates of correspondence theories have been metaphysical realists; that is, they believe that there is a world external to the minds of all humans. This is in contrast to metaphysical idealists who hold that everything that exists exists as a substantial metaphysical entity independently of the individual thing of which it is predicated, and also to conceptualists who hold that everything that exists is, in the end, just an idea in some mind. However, it is not strictly necessary that a correspondence theory be married to metaphysical realism. It is possible to hold, for example, that the facts of the world determine which statements are true and to also hold that the world (and its facts) is but a collection of ideas in the mind of some supreme being. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeuxi

Other points on reality:

True art = depiction of reality > true = reality and art = depiction? True art as the depiction of reality So need to represent reality Next Q: what is the best way to represent reality? Which means that the best rep of reality is the most true art? Objective and subjective truth (inside or outside) Positive and normative truth (not to do with human value or do) Truth in philosophy the correspondence theory of truth Gottlob Fregee Truth in anthropology; challenge set truth -> hierarchy

All our views are culturally biased Compare two paintings of same subject (turner, London); which one is truer? Mondrian truth Mandrina snail essence and imagery

Introduction: definition of true art - correspondence theory of truth Philosophical viewpoint: why do we need art to be true? art is a higher moral, we learn from it - aesthetic knowledge is a form of truth Roy Harris: ‘The fact that there is no globally acceptable definition of art is the elephant in our disciplinary living room’ + 3 definitions of art (‘institutional art’, individualistic pov, conceptual art: idea>physical incarnation) Alfred Gell: definition of art - art triggers reaction. Tangible vs. intangible. (conceptual art?) Anthropology: both art and truth are human concepts / subjective. Art depends on social bias. Both can also depend on a social convention, understanding or agreement. Definition of aesthetic knowledge (Thomas Mclenachan / sandbox) What is art? Roy Harris (three answers) The Truth of Art - Boris Groys https://www.e-flux.com/journal/71/60513/the-truth-of-art/ Is art capable of being a medium of truth? This question is central to the existence and survival of art because if art cannot be a medium of truth then art is only a matter of taste. One has to accept the truth even if one does not like it. But if art is only a matter of taste, then the art spectator becomes more important than the art producer. In this case art can be treated only sociologically or in terms of the art market—it has no independence, no power. Art becomes identical to design.””

2. Intention Conceptual - intention / deception. Institutions of art, curation is vital. Glasses in Texas gallery. Is art determined by artist or viewer? about choices, time effects art, diff value, given by diff people, subjective, agreement and trust

3. production and reproduction What truth for the artist is + philosophy around this ‘Artist is someone who can divorce themselves from the social world’ - Proust? Nietche? (who said this?) Institutional value (being institutional truth), curation, value, the power of the institution comes from the truth of the artifact, the reproduction has no value = diminishes the value of the institution itself, institution owes the public ‘true art’, but they are the ones who determine what ‘true art’ is and it’s value i.e. if an artefact is good enough for appreciation. The power of the institute is founded on the premise that it is trusted - trusted to value things. What is art? An institutional analysis. Georges Dickie http://ecourse.uoi.gr/pluginfile.php/91219/mod_resource/content/1/Dickie_What%20is%20art_.pdf Art is a form of commodity / quote by van gogh, create art for himself? vs authentic art The Uniqueness of a Work of Ar - R. Meager: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4544604?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

4. Reception (psychology ID) - is truth is this … then what is the psychology behind how we understand art to be true What are we understanding as true within art? ID link - psychological understandings: the viewer responds to something in the artwork that is true - what in the artwork is true that people respond to?? (coherence of the piece, reference to previous artists within the piece…?) By a piece of art being placed in an institution, there’s consensus that it is a good piece of artwork (or even that it is ‘art’) + who decides this?! Why is art placed in art gallery and not ethnography museum or anthropology museum? ID link: the way we learn from art can be applied to a variety of disciplines = collecting data from a variety of sources and trying to express an opinion/emotion to be received by others, that comments upon something unique/interesting/different, or has not been expressed in this way before ...applicable to lots of other disciplines. In this way you can integrate them together to have a greater understanding / gain knowledge ...e.g. can learn about history/cultural studies/politics etc. of a place ...see work of Michael Armitage - combines his childhood memories of Kenya, current news and recurrent visits, weaving multiple narratives to comment upon issues such as the country’s ‘politics, social inequalities, violence and extreme disparities in wealth’ http://whitecube.com/artists/artist/michael_armitage

5. Display why are judgements made + interdisciplinarity links Sociology: exhibiting ‘fakes’ or copies? what effect does this have on the public? why do we want to see true art? Display: education + attraction of people - curation v important Different houses of art: historical artefacts being labeled ‘art’ might demean it / if you give context to the art, you give it truth that was otherwise lost. Is the West adopting Eastern artefacts and labelling them as ‘art’ a form of cultural appropriation? Spiritual dimension: social cohesion + community formation around artefacts and works of art - Maori culture. Yam Adelam: identity, art as currency / commodity (use quote, art as commodity), artefact. Philosophical approach: the definition of art + cultural appropriation / status change of an object / truth in ethnography

6. Conclusion: what do all these different response mean for what truth is in art? Broader concerns + links to interdisciplinary studies The value of art Open questions: boundaries of art If art is a model of the world, what does this mean for other models of the world? All social models, what is it that makes fiction true (also a model)? Internal coherence. How does looking at ID links lead to other understandings of what art and truth is from how other disciplines respond

Conclusion points:


 * On the other hand if we consider that the institutions determine what is ‘true art’ then the question of truth in art and art in truth is also determined by disciplines such as sociology, imperialism and anthropology.
 * What do all these different response mean for what truth is in art?
 * Broader concerns + links to interdisciplinary studies
 * Open questions: boundaries of art
 * If art is a model of the world, what does this mean for other models of the world? All social models, what is it that makes fiction true (also a model)? Internal coherence.
 * Every model is both true and untrue and feed into each other when they interact.
 * How does this truth in art help us understand other disciplines? Art provides an individual perception of the world we cd that is communicated to others, a language for communicating different [outlooks]. (history and post war paintings)
 * How does looking at ID links lead to other understandings of what art and truth is from how other disciplines respond
 * from previous paragraphs: we can gain greater understanding of what art is by looking at these anthropological, sociological and ethnographical [links]
 * Why does it matter if art is truthful or not ?If you are looking at the post-truth world what does anthropology, for example, have to say about this, or sociology? (from Clare’s email)

Conclusion points:

On the other hand if we consider that the institutions determine what is ‘true art’ then the question of truth in art and art in truth is also determined by disciplines such as sociology, imperialism and anthropology.

What do all these different response mean for what truth is in art? Broader concerns + links to interdisciplinary studies Open questions: boundaries of art If art is a model of the world, what does this mean for other models of the world? All social models, what is it that makes fiction true (also a model)? Internal coherence. Every model is both true and untrue and feed into each other when they interact. How does this truth in art help us understand other disciplines? Art provides an individual perception of the world we cd that is communicated to others, a language for communicating different [outlooks]. (history and post war paintings) How does looking at ID links lead to other understandings of what art and truth is from how other disciplines respond from previous paragraphs: we can gain greater understanding of what art is by looking at these anthropological, sociological and ethnographical [links] Why does it matter if art is truthful or not ?If you are looking at the post-truth world what does anthropology, for example, have to say about this, or sociology? (from Clare’s email)

Introduction points:

definition of true art - correspondence theory of truth Philosophical viewpoint: why do we need art to be true? art is a higher moral, we learn from it - aesthetic knowledge is a form of truth Roy Harris: ‘The fact that there is no globally acceptable definition of art is the elephant in our disciplinary living room’ + 3 definitions of art (‘institutional art’, individualistic pov, conceptual art: idea>physical incarnation) Alfred Gell: definition of art - art triggers reaction. Tangible vs. intangible. (conceptual art?) Anthropology: both art and truth are human concepts / subjective. Art depends on social bias. Both can also depend on a social convention, understanding or agreement. Definition of aesthetic knowledge (Thomas Mclenachan / sandbox) What is art? Roy Harris (three answers) The Truth of Art - Boris Groys https://www.e-flux.com/journal/71/60513/the-truth-of-art/ Is art capable of being a medium of truth? This question is central to the existenIce and survival of art because if art cannot be a medium of truth then art is only a matter of taste. One has to accept the truth even if one does not like it. But if art is only a matter of taste, then the art spectator becomes more important than the art producer. In this case art can be treated only sociologically or in terms of the art market—it has no independence, no power. Art becomes identical to design.”” https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-art/Art-as-a-means-to-truth-or-knowledge ...“Art has even been called the avenue to the higest knowledge available to humans and to a kind of knowledge impossible of attainment by any other means.”

REFERENCES & LINKS

Art as a means to truth or knowledge https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-art/Art-as-a-means-to-truth-or-knowledge “Art has even been called the avenue to the highest knowledge available to humans and to a kind of knowledge impossible of attainment by any other means.” “Painting and sculpture, not being temporal arts, cannot depict action, and action is all-important in the representation of human character. These arts, as noted earlier, contain depictions of persons (real or imaginary) only on a knife-edge of time. Still, sometimes something may be inferred even from a knife-edge. The late self-portraits of the 17th-century Dutch artist Rembrandt do seem to reveal an agonized yet sometimes serene inner spirit, suggesting that there are flashes of human insight to be found in depictions of human beings in visual art.”

relevance and value changes over time why do we need art? why do we need true art? relevance in time

READ Baxter 1983: Art and Embodied Truth Picasso quotes e.g. everything you imagine is real (artist intent) An Introduction to Interdisciplinarity Research: Theory and Practice