PART NINEART, BEAUTY, MEANING,
OPINIONS, JUDGEMENT. Betty Soarre: What is art all about, anyway? Robert Yates: In Plato's Republic he had no place for artists and poets. I can imagine a society with no need for art — a good society, with justice for all citizens, in harmony with the earth. I can imagine a society of people who could look with love at nature and the beauty of each other and all things, and have no need for art. But that is not the way it is. And the way it is, of course, is what must concern us. Plato tells us that while Socrates was waiting for the death he was condemned to, he had a change of heart and tried writing poetry. And, in the last interview before he died, Heidegger suggested that philosophers haven't solved humankind's problems and that our only hope is with the artists. What does all this mean? These guys really knew how to think about things in a deep way. Life's too short. What are we doing here? Surely the real purpose of art is to open a way to the discovery of truth, beauty, God or love. If it has nothing to do with this then we are in a state of decadence and decline. Art is definitely not about all this endless yap-yap-yapping which is a circular and constricting noose of an activity, complete with blindfold and trap door. Art is about an expansive direct experience of the Good. It is certainly not about the puffing up of artists. B.S.: Some people would say you are out of date when you talk about beauty in art. R.Y.: Beauty and art are not of time. Being up to date has nothing to do with anything but puffed up egos. Let's not be too concerned with the wrapping paper, let's open it up and look at the essence of it. The games will go on without us. McLuhan said the medium is the message. Theoretical art talk is about ideas not art, and that's all right with me. It can be fun, and so can merry-go-rounds, but both have little to do with things beyond their own little circles. B.S.: Is this another theory? R.Y.: Yes, I know, the denouncing of theories comes off sounding like just another theory. But after all, we are using words. Perhaps I flatter myself, but I would like to think I am just stating facts, not trying to colour them with my opinions and beliefs. You, the listener, the viewer or the reader will be the best judge of that. The important thing is that each of us see the truth of the matter for him or herself and not be hoodwinked by the loud stupidity of the person with the most forceful opinion. B.S.: Don't we need opinions? R.Y.: What for? B.S.: To determine which works of art are better, and which are most worthy of our consideration. R.Y.: This smacks of snobbery to me. Not only is it undemocratic but it could be tyrannical, the dictating of proper or politically correct taste. I was taught the least important thing about a person is his opinion. I realize that many people believe aggressive opinions to be very important. They determine a pecking order, a way of saying A is more important than B. But why this is considered necessary, I don't know. B.S.: Well, how can we know what art is worthy of the museums and galleries without strongly held and well-argued opinions? R.Y.: Cezanne and the Impressionists, Van Gogh and hundreds of others were rejected by the establishment critics of their day. We have no reason whatsoever to believe the establishment critics of our day are any more capable of accurate assessment of what is enduring art than their counterparts of a hundred years ago. Which is to say, I'm afraid the Brillo Soap boxes in the National Gallery are more than likely doomed to irrelevance and obscurity by some future assessors of art history. At some point, if our civilization lasts, this is almost certain. B.S.: So do you think that acquisitions and assessments for posterity should be made after artists are dead ? R.Y.: No, what I'm saying is the Van Goghs that are so highly regarded now, once were ignored, and they may come to be rejected by tomorrow's critics and thrown on the trash heap of history. We live in a constant present and what is meaningful now must be discovered now, not yesterday, and above all, not through a projection to what we think is "of tomorrow." Some cultural czar down the road may settle on Barnett Newman as the greatest painter in the history of the world. If his theory is strong enough, he could even arrange to have all other paintings burned. But the only absolute assessment is the one you, the viewer, feels in her bones and her heart and the skin of her teeth, in the here and now. The making of art— and certainly the appreciation of art— is not a competitive activity and we should be thankful for the richness and variety of human expression. One way of seeing does not have to be to the exclusion of another way. There is lots of room for both classical and folk music, as well as jazz, country, rock and even the stuff you hear on elevators. Even if we love roses with a passion, we should be thankful all flowers aren't roses. B.S.: Why do you paint ? R.Y.: Someone once asked a famous mountain climber why he climbed Mount Everest. He replied, because it's there. Why would I paint a painting? Because it isn't there. B.S.: I think this is as good a place as any to bring our conversation to a close. I want to thank you for this. R.Y.: It was a pleasure. FIN. Back to PART ONE.
Link to Yates's website: http://robertclarkyates.weebly.com |
PART ONE
Making Art; For Whom & Why PART TWO The Artist, Childhood Influence, Family & Other Artists. PART THREE Education, Relationship to Nature, Artistic Making, Trail Signs. PART FOUR Further Influences & Education, Signatures & Definition Problems. PART FIVE High Art & Folk Art, Snobbery, Colonialism, Roots, Nationalism, Canada. PART SIX Culture, Tradition, Ancestry, The Importance of Art. PART SEVEN The Art World, Hierarchies, Comparisons, Juried Shows & Fashions. PART EIGHT Perception & Conception, Critics, Words & Seeing. PART NINE Art, Beauty, Meaning, Opinions, Judgement. |