The question of what the concept of language means in the fine art world, we need to accept the fact that we are not talking about language in any traditional sense.
Often in fine art we are talking about a language that may speak from one art artifact to another.
Additionally the relationship of the elements communicated from one artifact to another inform the viewer that the artifacts themselves are signifying meaning, narrative, or informal information about the temporal narrative of the artifacts involved. James Elkins from the University of Chicago convincingly questions the assertion by artists, critics, and others that art represents a language in the true sense of language.
Yet art observers of all kinds repeatedly speak as if an art object, an artist, or a set of objects create or represent a 'language'.
For the sake of clarity, let's identify the communication relationships art can participate in and where, if anywhere, we can find traces of language rather than pattern or other projected intuitions being mistaken for language.
Human language elements wi/artifact[s] to human language elements wi/artifact[s] (narrative)
Artist[s] to artifact[s]
- Personal semantics
- Group semantics
Manufacturers to artifact[s]
Patron [viewer] to artifact[s]
- Speaks to human condition
- Speaks to special interest group
Curator to Artifact[s]
Purchaser to Artifact[s]
Artifact to sequential artifact
Artifact to artifact within a series [temporal differentiation]
Artifact to Fine Art
Artifact to Craft
Artifact to Copyist [including fraudulent copies]
Artifact to Art [World] Market
Artifact to Commercial market
Artifact[s] to curated context
Artifact[s] to institutional context
Artifact[s] to Intellectual context
Artifact[s] to Social context
Artifact[s] to Organizational context [including religious, spiritual or philisophical relationships]
Embedded Human language artifact[s]
Patron [viewer] to artifact[s]
There are occasions when an observer of an artifacr will claim the piece "speaks" to them. This is different from language in that the observer is speaking of a highly personal connection with the art experience that can be quite different or semantically antithetical from one observer to another.
Artifact to Copyist
In the case of a fraudulent copy of a previously existing original artifract, the question of how such an artifact could be considered 'Fine' art is worth considering.
By definition, a copy of an original Art artifact is craftwork. The fraudulent artifact is devoid of originality as that aspect of the piece's integrity belongs to the original artist. So in the case of considering such a work as worthy fine art, the following explanations:
The reputation of the artist:
as innovative craftsman
as clever rascal - sometimes criminal
The reflected 'beatitude' that the fraudulent piece aesthetically inherits from the original or from its association to one of the many art relationships this essay explores.
No comments:
Post a Comment