Illustration by Emilio Villalba (@emilio_villalba)

When experiencing and analysing art, most people put automatically in practice three main thoughts.

The first one is to look for a definition of art that we can base our analysis on. This can be a statement, a vision, or a philosophical standpoint that makes us distinguish what is art and what is not, what is acceptable as artistic expression and what is outside the artworld, what is true and what is false. It takes place in every aspect of our lives. Our brains look for conceptual maps to orient themselves into reality, stimulating critical thinking and making us be a part of society. Hence why we settle for pre-set and pre-defined concepts; they help us navigate through the world and interpret what we see. It is a natural mechanism that we unconsciously adopt.

But, how does it happen? We start by giving meaning to our reality through codes– which will eventually start shaping our personal views regarding different aspects of it. This is recognized as Foucault’s “Discourse Theory”. According to him, a discourse is a term that refers to the evaluation of the system of ideas, thoughts and practices, that will consequently transform into what we refer to as “culture”. This culture, however, does not exist in nature but inevitably becomes a substantial part of our lives.

In addition, some discourses will be accepted as true and some as illogic; depending on our current way of thinking. They act as a tool that guides us in the world and helps us to communicate with one another through the same concepts and ideas– which is why we perceive them as naturally given and we do not question them. However, when it comes to art, this can be perceived as dangerous. By sharing the same ideas, we tend to look for a single definition of art or a description that can be applied instinctively, and cannot be questioned. A pre-set definition that constraints our idea of art, and limits its freedom. I believe it is not possible to create one unique statement about art without reducing its complexity into one single definition, since it inevitably excludes a multitude of possibilities and eludes interpretations that will enrich our way of thinking the world.

The second process that we do when we are looking at art, is gathering factual information about an artwork in order to understand it. We look for aspects such as the art movement to which it belongs, the history behind it, where it has been displayed, an even interpretations of art critics. Moreover, we continuously look for confirmation and approval from what we recognize as an entity of power and knowledge, to provide us an explanation that should be “objective” and factual about the work. According to art critic Arthur Danto, “To see something as art requires something the eye cannot descry — an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an artworld.” But is this what art is all about? Is it enough to gather this kind of information around the work to appreciate it? I personally think that it is fundamental to let our critical reasoning flow whenever we speak about art. This does not mean to refuse critic, interpretations and history but to leave space for our own perception, feelings and reflection.

“To see something as art requires something the eye cannot descry — an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an artworld.”

— Arthur Danto

The third and final common practice that we follow, is looking for the hidden truth behind the objects of art. We expect art to be about the artist seeing the true essence of the world and representing it on a canvas in a new form. But does this hidden truth exist? Foucault believed that “we must not imagine the world turns towards us a legible face which we would have only to decipher; the world is not the accomplice of our knowledge; there is no prediscursive providence which disposes the world in our favor.” We should leave behind all the attempts of finding a ontological meaning in the works, which will never be fixed and universal.

These automated practices and ideas lead us to search for explanations that give art a meaning and a factual context, framing and constraining our system of thoughts. In particular, readers desire to cognitively understand the artworks by rationalizing them into a definition of art. In order to do so, we look for the concepts given by these interpretations, providing us with a clearer understanding of art.

By concentrating our energy in cognitively understanding art, we forget to experience it with senses and through critical interpretation. We elude any other way of experiencing the artwork and we exclude the possibility to dialogue, which is the true value of art. Instead, whenever we understand that a piece cannot be labelled and that its space of freedom is what makes it art, then we can stop looking for a definition. We can stop looking for a fixed, defined concept in everything we look at– by accepting its discrepancies as intrinsic characteristics of reality. And this is the moment in which, we start to open our senses and abandon these interpretations that bind us and create boundaries. According to Susan Sontag, what is important now is to recover our senses. We must learn to see more, to hear more, to feel more. Our task is not to find the maximum amount of content in a work of art, much less to squeeze more content out of the work that is already there. Out task is to cut back content so that we can see the thing at all.

To define is to put in boxes. If we do not use definitions, then we have to push ourselves to think critically about what we are looking at. If we follow this path, art is no more about constraints and limitations. When we experience what we are looking at, we leave behind everything that we know or what we think to know, and we are forced to use our senses and critical thinking to give birth to our own personal contribution about the work.

The arts world turns to be the only field in which our prejudices, definitions, cognitive maps and interpretative signs, can be forgotten in order to be replaced by a thought that is not supported by outside theories. It only comes from ourselves and from the unique vision each of us can bring to the world. This entails that everyone’s reflection is personal and different, therefore there an is opportunity to dialogue and confront each other in this special “place” called art. There is space for something new, for real reflection that digs inside someone’s mind and stimulates the uniqueness approach and views of everyone to this world. We need to start navigating to reflect, to confront, and to question everything – even our own thoughts. This incredibly precious heritage that art leaves us has to be understood in order to fully develop.

In conclusion, it is not about finding a place where everyone can be themselves in a utopic way, but about opening the doors to reflection, progress, and beauty. Artists look at the world and elaborate an analysis of their reality which is then condensed in their artworks, as a result of the process of analysis they have done. The viewers do the same when looking at an artwork because they relate to it, they reflect upon it and elaborate their own relationship with the work. Cristina Campo beautifully describes this when talking about poetry in “Gli imperdonabili”. I want to close my article with her quote, which is a mirror to my personal approach to art:

“ Pure poetry is gerogliphic: decipherable only in the form of destiny. (…). Many years I have repeated in myself some verses (…). But I wondered around their secret position, until my own destiny gave me the key to understand it (…)
”

— Cristina Campo

3 Traps That Influence Your Way of Looking At Art

When experiencing and analysing art, most people put automatically in practice three main thoughts.