The artisits intentions: Do they matter?

Do you think that the artists intentions matter?

I say no for two reasons.

First, unless the artist is available to tell every single person who views that piece what the he "meant" by that piece, then the viewers will draw their own conclusions about that piece.

For example, abstract expressionism is not just a big canvas that is splattered with paint. There is a theory and idea behind the creation of that painting. Yet many people, unaware of what the artist was trying to do, will look at that canvas and say, "That's not art. I can do that."

Even if the artisit were available to explain what he was trying to do, some people might still look at it and come up with their own conclusion.

This brings me to my second reason:

I think being part of an art movement (any art movement: pop, cubism, surrealism, neo-classical, expressionism, etc.) actually helps communicate the artists intentions. As stated in reason number one, some people will look at art and come up with their own conclusions, but a defined movement at least has a theory or idea behind it and those familiar with those ideas have a better chance to understand the artists intentions.

The problem lies in the fact that there is no longer a defined art movement. Since Pop art has made its rise and fall, there has not been a defined art movement. You can track the progression of art through time starting with cave paintings, believed to be informational paintings telling other hunters where to find prey, through classical Greek and Roman art, and on to medieval art, onto the rebirth or Renaissance movement, and then such movements as Romanticism, Realism, Impressionism and Post-Impressionism, and with out listing all of the movements, through the 50's and 60's with abstract expressionism, Pop art and Post-Modernism.

It is my belief that there has not been a defined movement since then. One could argue that digital art is the new movement, but I would argue that it is more of a new medium and lacks a defined style or idea. The effect this has had is a hodgepodge of different styles with no originality, cohesion, or theory behind it. It seems that the artist is usually only concerned with shock value.

This lack of defined style makes it nearly impossible for a viewer to understand the artists intentions and almost begs us to come up with our own conclusions. A good example of this is the 1996 painting by Chris Ofili "The Holy Virgin Mary" which depicted the Virgin Mary which the artist then splattered with elephant dung. It caused quite a controversy since the exhibit was held at a public museum and funded by tax payers money. The exhibit also contained animals in formaldehyde and sculptures of people with genitalia for faces.



The pure shock value of the exhibit was what caused the controversy and was fueled by the Mayors threat to cut funding to the museum. People drew a battle line and picked sides. You were either on the side of religious people who took offense to the exhibit and wanted it shut down or you were on the side that believed that shutting down the exhibit was censorship and a violation of the artists freedom of speech. Lost in the whole mix was what the painting and exhibit were about.

So the question is: Do you think that an artists intentions matter?