Negative Art Never Exists

There came a time during a repeated viewing of the movie Armageddon in which I began to ask myself why it is that movies such as this enter into production. Pop-art remains the most beautiful and profound of artistic enigmas. Certainly such vacuity cannot echo any great aspect of the human experience. Yet only a misanthrope could argue for its uselessness and invalidity. A purely monetary explanation remains superficial and elliptical; similarly limiting is an escapist analysis.

By altering the definitions of “What constitutes Art?” and “What makes Art engaging?”, a more satisfying solution can be reached. A materialistic approach is generally taken to answer such questions. For an object or image to be recognized as artistically valid it must contain within its conception a certain quality which appeals to the observer. Greek proportions, harmony, balance, structure; the totem of artistic cannon in this regard casts a grand shadow over any who wishes to probe its abstruseness. Even in the writing of the most able art critics, however, a haze of ambiguity obscures any attempts to truly define aesthetic appeal. Dadaism has proven the disunity between Art as institution and any ‘true’ aesthetic values. Similarly, many amateur and lesser poets can be quite adept at utilising the forms and structures traditionally held sacred to their art. Yet, their work frequently lacks that transcendent emotional quality which allows a work to be more universally praised.

Refocusing can in some instances yield clarity. Materialism is limiting. Positing a theory of Art-as-interaction allows a more universal application. Art is not the quality of an object, nor of its various constituent parts. Instead it can be seen as the interaction between the object and the observer. It can be likened to human relationships: it is the space between the two which defines both. Art cannot exist without the observer; the concept of the “lost work of art” is a fallacy and an oxymoron: until they are rediscovered, the lost works of Aeschylus will remain merely interesting facts. Art never exists merely for its own sake. Art is inspiration looking for a lover; the drive is a purely organic one. This interaction may be extremely profound and enduring. It may also be superficial and of only minor interest. Neither is more valid while the observer is in the immediacy of experiencing the interaction however; Dionysus blinds as frequently as he liberates.
Furthermore, art cannot be held responsible for being an influence on society. Believing this allows one to escape one’s own responsibilities. In this regard it is interesting to note that in condemning the pop-artist Marilyn Manson, the American christian coalition uses more graphic language describing his supposedly perverse acts than Manson himself does. How could the works such ‘perverse’ artists such as Manson or Joel-Peter Witkin corrupt society while their critics remain uncorrupted by their exposure to it? By arguing they negate their own argument. Is art a mirror of society, or is society a mirror of art? That is perhaps the wrong question to ask. Is it not more true that art is the act of society looking in the mirror? Such a question allows both the christian coalition and Marilyn Manson to be equally valid answers.

Such a definition allows for the great variety observed in the personal tastes of individuals, as well as the ascent or atrophy of the appeal of an individual work. In this capacity a Lysippian statue or a concerto by Mozart will affect many for centuries. Likewise, a work such as Armageddon will affect many for a much more limited time, which for myself was a few minutes at most. That was, of course, its entire purpose.