Skip to content

Milton Glaser, Graphic Designer, 2007

Art Is Work

- Milton Glaser

Interviewed by Hilman Curtis for Adobe, 2007

Sent in by Jonathan Fasulo

Monday, May 12, 2008

Joseph Beuys, Artist, 1970

“Art is not there to provide knowledge in direct ways. It produces deepened perceptions of experience. More must happen than simply logically understandable things. Art is not there to be simply understood, or we would have no need of art. It could then just be logical sentences in a form of a text for instance. Where objects are concerned it’s more the sense of an indication or suggestion.

With the two tin cans I took the most childlike form of communication and characterized them with a positive and negative pole. This underlines that in the universal sense communication has to be there. The form of the tins has to be extended, since it is only then that the thing takes on a meaning. The tins themselves cannot offer that. They indicate merely a simple elementary procedure: the concept of transmitter and receiver. . . that means two stations, whether they are individuals or groups of people that are connected. A connecting string and a positive and negative pole and the two begin to exchange information. But that is still not a declaration of what a contemporary theory of information could be. The tins cannot offer that, but they can stimulate an impetus if an intuitive person comes across them. But it doesn’t have to be like that. Another person could come and just see the things-two tin cans-that are anyway no worse than a Brancusi sculpture.”

“But if the concept of art becomes anthropological it is totalized and really does refer to human creativity, to human work and not simply the work of artists. Why anyway should the term art refer to the work of painters and sculptors? That is simply a restriction that never existed before.”

- Joseph Beuys

Excerpts from the interview Questions to Joseph Beuys, 1970

conducted by Jörg Schellmann and Bernd Klüser

Sent in by Claudia Luethi

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Susan Sontag, Writer, 1964

2

None of us can ever retrieve that innocence before all theory when art knew no need to justify itself, when one did not ask of a work of art what it said because one knew (or thought one knew) what it did. From now to the end of consciousness, we are stuck with the task of defending art. We can only quarrel with one or another means of defense. Indeed, we have an obligation to overthrow any means of defending and justifying art which becomes particularly obtuse or onerous or insensitive to contemporary needs and practice.

This is the case, today, with the very idea of content itself. Whatever it may have been in the past, the idea of content is today mainly a hindrance, a nuisance, a subtle or not so subtle philistinism.

Though the actual developments in many arts may seem to be leading us away from the idea that a work of art is primarily its content, the idea still exerts an extraordinary hegemony. I want to suggest that this is because the idea is now perpetuated in the guise of a certain way of encountering works of art thoroughly ingrained among most people who take any of the arts seriously. What the overemphasis on the idea of content entails is the perennial, never consummated project of interpretation. And, conversely, it is the habit of approaching works of art in order to interpret them that sustains the fancy that there really is such a thing as the content of a work of art.

9

Transparence is the highest, most liberating value in art - and in criticism - today. Transparence means experiencing the luminousness of the thing in itself, of things being what they are. This is the greatness of, for example, the films of Bresson and Ozu and Renoir’s The Rules of the Game.

Once upon a time (say, for Dante), it must have been a revolutionary and creative move to design works of art so that they might be experienced on several levels. Now it is not. It reinforces the principle of redundancy that is the principal affliction of modern life.

Once upon a time (a time when high art was scarce), it must have been a revolutionary and creative move to interpret works of art. Now it is not. What we decidedly do not need now is further to assimilate Art into Thought, or (worse yet) Art into Culture.

Interpretation takes the sensory experience of the work of art for granted, and proceeds from there. This cannot be taken for granted, now. Think of the sheer multiplication of works of art available to every one of us, superadded to the conflicting tastes and odors and sights of the urban environment that bombard our senses. Ours is a culture based on excess, on overproduction; the result is a steady loss of sharpness in our sensory experience. All the conditions of modern life - its material plenitude, its sheer crowdedness - conjoin to dull our sensory faculties. And it is in the light of the condition of our senses, our capacities (rather than those of another age), that the task of the critic must be assessed.

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 than is already there. Our task is to cut back content so that we can see the thing at all.

The aim of all commentary on art now should be to make works of art - and, by analogy, our own experience - more, rather than less, real to us. The function of criticism should be to show how it is what it is, even that it is what it is, rather than to show what it means.

-Susan Sontag

Excerpts from the essay Against Interpretation, 1964

As republished in Against Interpretation And Other Essays, 2001

Friday, May 9, 2008