Finding Meaning in the Complex: A Review of the WSU MFA Thesis Exhibit

Meaning is something that can oftentimes be quite difficult to detect. It generally takes a great deal of effort, imagination, understanding and empathy to fully comprehend all the levels of depth that can exist in art. For this reason, meaning is frequently overlooked. Many people tend to simply look at a work of art and focus only on the surface qualities, deciding if it is aesthetically pleasing or not. However, every once in a while there comes a time when the meaning of a work is absolutely overpowering and cannot be ignored. The Master of Fine Arts Thesis Exhibition proved to be just such an experience.

Of the artists showcased in the exhibit, every one of them added a great deal of depth to each of their works. While this complexity was often very difficult to understand, it was certainly not hard to detect. For example, it was fairly obvious that Brad Dinsmore was saying something quite profound with his work Epistemological Notebooks (2009). Epistemology is a subject that is very challenging to understand in its own right. Attempting to explain the nature of knowledge is guaranteed to be complex, especially when trying to do it through illustrations. Dinsmore’s notebooks, while hard to comprehend, at least succeeded at getting viewers to think about their own definitions of knowledge as they attempted to link the title of the work to the drawings on the screen. Though it seemed a common mistake was to try and find some kind of similarity between each one of the pages in the notebooks. Each notebook was just a jumble of various images, separate from all the others. However, it may be that this was the statement the artist was trying to make. Perhaps the development of knowledge has no pattern or linearity to it; knowledge may be derived solely from a person’s experiences and the random snapshots within their memory. Dinsmore was not the only artist to make a commentary on knowledge and the human experience.

Dustin Price was another artist from the exhibit whose works were steeped in epistemological meaning. The work he constructed in the middle of the exhibit, Untitled (2009), was especially captivating. From a distance it appeared to be just a beautiful, snow-covered tree. Upon looking closer though the viewer immediately notices something else going on in the work. Rather than snowy leaves, Price’s tree was covered in little white Buddhas and surrounded by white pillows on the ground. Now Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) is famous for resting/meditating for a long time under a tree while attempting to reach nirvana. It could be that Price’s tree was just a simple tribute to Buddha and his way of life. However, it may also be that Price was attempting to create a monument to the pursuit of knowledge. Buddha’s way of life was focused on the search for truth and knowledge through meditation. The creation of the Buddha tree surrounded by pillows could just be a way in which to highlight the human desire to achieve knowledge and describe/understand human experience. Another artist who tried to describe human experience was Tobias Walther.

Right away Walther’s work entitled Sailor (2009) appeared to be significant. Most people expect movies to have a plot and follow a logical progression. For this reason, Sailor was quite surprising and unique. The film essentially puts the viewer in the shoes of someone running across the Palouse. There are also random images from around Pullman interjected throughout this search; images of things such as doorways, tunnels, and machinery. It could be that Walther was using this film to emphasize some of the same points that Dinsmore and Price were. Knowledge may not follow a simple linear progression but a jumble of the various snapshots from a person’s memory. It may also be that humans are drawn, like Buddha, to be constantly searching for knowledge and truth in an attempt to explain human experience (i.e. the man searching around the Palouse).

The Master of Fine Arts Thesis Exhibition, while certainly complex in nature, did appear to have a clear theme. The exhibit as a whole was focused around knowledge and describing the human experience. While the pursuit of knowledge is central to human existence it is jumbled and inherently flawed. Being human therefore involves actively trying to sort through the jumbled images of experience in order to develop a more accurate picture of the world.

The Double Meaning: A Freudian/Foucaultian Analysis of Pollock's Chaos

When discussing both Freud and Foucault, I think Jackson Pollock is a perfect example for some of their key points. Pollock is one of those artists who really tested the art world, mostly by letting go and painting something that his inner muse desired. These are two things that both Freud and Foucault touched on. Freud was interested in how the unconscious can influence art. Foucault discussed how the quality of art is affected by the degree to which it challenges the norms at the time. One could argue that Pollock did both of these things.

The first thing I ever noticed about Jackson Pollock’s work was how chaotic it appeared. There are splotches and streaks going in just about every possible direction. This chaos, that Pollock so effectively illustrates, could quite easily be related to Freud’s unconscious. Freud’s unconscious is very chaotic. It is constantly being influenced by various drives (such as sex and aggression) as well as being suppressed and controlled by the consciousness at the same time. In other words, there is a perpetual struggle going on in our minds. I feel that Pollock’s art truly displays this conflict. I mean, the impulsiveness of his strokes really signify unconscious influences. Yet at the same time, the edge of the canvas puts a control on just how much impulsivity is to be allowed.

One could also see the chaotic nature of Pollock’s work to be very Foucaultian in nature. Pollock was really one of the first painters to paint in that crazy way of his. For this reason he was really testing the art world to see what it would or would not accept as art. Some might say Pollock’s paintings are childish garbage. Others might say that they are masterpieces. Regardless, they certainly made an impact, and that is because they called to question the norms of art at the time. The average painter just simply did not paint in such a ridiculous, abstract way. Foucault would commend Pollock for doing this. His paintings are physical manifestations of the intermediary region described by Foucault in The Order of Things. That is the region of knowledge where people analyze and critique the orders of their society; regardless of whether or not the current orders are best. While people can have mixed opinions about whether or not Pollock’s works are any good, Foucault would argue that because they questioned the art norms of the day, they are an example of art in its purest form.

Gender: How much does it influence art?

Loosely defined, art is a communication of thoughts, experiences and emotions. Art is therefore, very personal. Two artists will never be able to truly paint two pictures that are identical in everyway. Each person’s existence is just so different and unique from the next person that their artwork can’t help but be affected. That said, one could argue that gender does in fact determine art. The two different renditions of Judith Beheading Holofernes by artists Artemesia Gentileschi and Caravaggio support this. However, as we all saw in the play The Heidi Chronicles by Wendy Wasserstein, gender doesn’t necessarily determine everything.

You don’t need to be an expert to see the stark differences in Gentileschi’s and Caravaggio’s versions of Judith Beheading Holofernes. Caravaggio, a male artist, painted a very timid and weak Judith. She appears out of place and very unskilled with a blade. She seems unsure of herself and her actions. Gentileschi, a female artist, decided to go with a very different direction with her Judith. Her Judith has a much more powerful appearance and appears to be fairly familiar with a blade. She certainly knows what she’s doing and has no misgivings about getting the job done. More importantly, her female companion plays a much more active role in the murder (compared to Caravaggio’s more passive onlooker), possibly suggesting the necessity for women to stick together. The thoughts, experiences and emotions of these artists were certainly influenced by their genders. However, gender may not have acted alone in this situation; something else might have ultimately led to the differences in the paintings. Wasserstein portrays this in her play.

Heidi and her various female companions from the play The Heidi Chronicles were originally defined by their gender. At first, they felt the social pressures to conform based on being female. Women were supposed to marry, have kids, and be the homemakers. Unsatisfied with this, they joined the feminist movement, but even then, it seemed that gender differences were the focal point of everything; both society’s norms and the norms of the feminist movement were centered around gender differences. She wasn’t expected to be a homemaker anymore but now she was suppose to be a single business women without children. Heidi’s other friends however, become less influenced by gender as the play goes on. Susan, for instance, comes to define herself by materialism more than anything else; wealth and power become central to all of her thoughts, experiences and emotions. In other words, if Susan had been a painter her paintings would have stopped being quite as influenced by her gender. The different personality traits of Heidi and Susan are what ultimately led the two women to go different directions. Heidi was much more independent (and stubborn) than Susan throughout the play, and consequently felt more comfortable defining herself based on differences. Susan simply followed the crowd. As soon as feminism was no longer popular, she moved on to materialism.

This difference in the characters is relevant to art as well. Each and every one of us is a human first and everything else second. Yes, an artist’s gender can affect their work. But it doesn’t necessarily have to. A person’s personality characteristics are what really determine his or her thoughts, experiences, and emotions.

Jackson Pollock: Hume's Shining Example

To be honest, my first impression of Jackson Pollock’s work was not a good one. Jackson Pollock’s paintings initially come across as something that a kindergartner, who just graduated from finger painting, created. To the untrained eye, his canvases look like nothing but wild splatters, splotches, and streaks; a chaotic war between all the various colors of the spectrum. However, as one learns more about Jackson Pollock and is exposed to more and more of his works, it becomes easier to appreciate them. I personally began to notice this transformation while watching the film about Teri Horton and her potential Pollock find.

At first, I could not understand how the so called “experts” of the art world could dismiss Teri’s painting so quickly. Her painting looked just like the same random paint mess that characterizes any of Jackson Pollock’s works. However, after listening to some of Pollock’s friends and other various “Pollock specialists” describe why they thought Teri’s painting was a fake, I really began to see the complexity behind his work and what made it so unique. Pollock painted with a great deal of depth. His colors were chosen very carefully, and he applied them to the canvas in a strict order, following certain patterns he had in his mind. Yet at the same time there was also a lot of improvisation in Pollock’s work. It was his ability to mix structure with improvisation that was, in my opinion, what made him such an amazing painter. His paintings are both turbulent and harmonious at the same time, which is likely why many people love them so much. However, there are also a lot of people who do not like Pollock’s paintings (such as Teri’s friend from the film). For this reason, I was reminded of David Hume’s discussion of art.

Hume was the theorist who believed that tasteful art was based on sentiment and since sentiment “has a reference to nothing beyond itself, and is always real, wherever a man is conscious of it”, it takes only one person to decide if something is tasteful. This theory directly applies to Pollock’s work. While there are many people who dislike his paintings, Pollock’s works have none the less become tasteful (as well as famous) because of the people who do like his paintings. Granted the more people who find sentiment in your work, the more famous and successful you will be, but it only takes one person to make you an artist (and Pollock certainly has at least one fan). If no one else, I know that I have become a Pollock fan, but I’d wager that at least the guy who dropped $140 million on a Pollock is one too.

Art: The Medium Through Which Many Become One

At first glance, it can be quite easy to view Tolstoy’s and Nietzsche’s explanations of art to be two completely different things. It is important not to let the complexity of their writings fool you into thinking such things however. Upon taking a closer look one can see that the authors’ two different approaches to describe art actually end up meeting at similar conclusions.

Tolstoy talks about art in terms of how “infectious” it is. To most people, the word “infectious” generally has very negative or bad overtones. This is not the case for Tolstoy’s description of art. He uses the word as a way to rate how much a piece of art can channel the feeling, emotions, and experiences of the artist to anyone who views it. On page 179 Tolstoy writes, “All this, if only the boy when telling the story, again experiences the feelings he had lived through, and infects the hearers and compels them to feel what he had experience—is art.” The better the work is able to convey these feelings and experiences onto the viewer, the higher the quality of that art.

Nietzsche on the other hand, describes art in a different manner. He believes that art is defined by its ability to collapse the principium individuationis. The term principium individuationis is latin for “the principle of individuation”. This principle upholds the importance of being an individual (i.e. being self-reliant and having personal independence). Nietzsche says that art breaks down this individualism. The method in which it does this is what makes Tolstoy and Nietzsche so similar.

Both philosophers believe that the infectiousness or the collapsing of the principium individuationis originates from a very primal instinct within man or as Nietzsche put it, “…wells from the innermost depths of man…” (164). Since art effects all people, all the way down to their core, it has the ability to momentarily erase our individualism and unite us together. Tolstoy says this another way when he writes, “If a man is infected by the author’s condition of soul, if he feels this emotion and this union with others, then the object which has effected this is art” (179). While Tolstoy and Nietzsche differ on the vehicle in which to describe art, they still manage to observe the same effect art has on people. Both men understand that art has the power to break down barriers between people, and can if only for a split second, bring us all together as we gaze at something beautiful.

Can He Fake It?

Personally, I strongly dislike reality television. Most reality shows are petty and play off of the superficial obsessions of modern society. I mean, how many times must we watch Paris Hilton parade around and show America how rich and spoiled she is? However, every once in a while I’ll run across a reality show that really sparks my interest and not only has substance, but provides some degree of a life lesson as well. The BBC program “Faking it”, is one of these shows.

“Faking it” is quite enjoyable to watch because of how applicable it is to everyday life. At some point, just about everyone finds themselves in a situation where they must learn something new and be scrutinized for their performance. The first day of a new job is a perfect example of this. Paul, the main character from “Faking It”, essentially goes through this experience and of course, has difficulties with the transition. Paul must go from being a commercial painter to artist in one month and produce a final painting that is good enough to convince critics that he is in fact a real painter. Paul’s task is more of an undertaking than one might think. Painting a house is quite different from painting a masterpiece that is to be hung in a gallery and judged by art critics; a painting so much more than simple brush strokes. It must speak volumes about the artist’s thoughts, experiences, and emotions. I’ve really enjoyed watching the initial part of the show where Paul begins to learn the basics of art and art theory because it reminds me of my journey through UH 440 and how I have been learning much of the same stuff. Like Paul, I knew hardly anything about art. To me, if it looked pretty then it was good. However, I am finally starting to realize how there is so much more than just aesthetics to art. In my opinion, Paul will learn that too by the end of the show.

If I had to make a prediction as to whether or not Paul will be able to trick the critics into thinking he’s a real artist, I would have to say he will most definitely succeed. By merely attempting to create a painting, you could be considered an artist. Paul is going to have a great deal of training and experience by the time he is to be judged. I think that if I can become an art critic within a few months of UH 440, Paul can certainly become an artist. Already viewers can tell that he is really pouring his heart and soul into the paintings he’s created. Once he has gotten all the basics down, he should truly be able to create a wonderful work of art.

Art: The Real Money-Maker

Throughout history, one can look at countless instances of commercialization. Farming is a perfect example. At first, farming was done solely for subsistence. People farmed for themselves and for their families. Then, once it developed into a source of income, collectivization kicked in and farming was no longer a personal activity. Art, in many ways, has also undergone this transformation. The rise of corporations like Art Capital or brand names such as Thomas Kinkade, depict this change.

When one thinks of art, the term expression is often paired with it. This is because traditionally, that is what art has always been; a way of expressing yourself through some kind of medium. In today’s modern society however, particularly in America, people have become so consumed with the acquisition of wealth that even art is in danger of becoming a commodity. Ian Peck and Baird Ryan, co-owners of Art Capital, have built a business around this commercialization of art. They, on a very basic level, issue large loans to people who wish to use art as collateral. Now from a business stand point, this seems like a good deal. Art hardly ever has sudden shifts in value. If a client defaults on their loan, the company knows they will still receive something of value regardless. In today’s economy that type of solubility is quite rare, especially with the way the housing market looks right now. However, from an artistic point of view, there is a net loss in value during such a transaction. The message conveyed in a work of art loses strength when it is circulated as currency. People stop looking at the work for its meaning and more for the monetary gain they can receive from it. Most artists create their art without a price tag in mind. However, even that commonality is changing through the work of Thomas Kinkade.

Thomas Kinkade is in many ways, just like the consumer who views art as a commodity. He has turned the production of art into an assembly line, in which he can pumped out the most amount of “paintings” in the least amount of time. There is no reason for this other than to make a lot of money. The standard Thomas Kinkade isn’t even really a painting anymore. His company devised a way to create elaborate prints of his originals (through use of oil highlights and peal-able ink that is applied to canvas) which are then sold for thousands of dollars. Kinkade’s paintings are almost void of anything meaningful at this point. He essentially uses a formula so that in almost every one of his works there is either some kind of a cottage, or lighthouse, or marina in it. His works follow this formula so as to ensure that to some degree there will always be an aesthetic appeal of the consumer. There is no message or meaning behind a Kinkade painting only the motive to acquire wealth.

As with all commercialization, emphasis is put on quantity not quality. Companies like Art Capital or Thomas Kinkade, make a living off quantity. As a result, art becomes this commodity that is bought and sold. It becomes just another form of currency. With that in mind, can one even call it art anymore if it has lost its meaning? It would seem not.