Response to: 60s and 70s: Systems and Experiments, and Questioning Perceptions

by Thomas

This is an important question we can ask. "Which scientific experiment involving rats in mazes and mental cognition do you prefer?" I would immediately say, the experiment that tells us the best story, that explains neuronal synapse uniquely, the experiment that does not lie. Who is going to be the judge of the truth, however. What you may be saying is that we can not simply judge an experiment based on aesthetic results when indeed it is an exploration of artistic limitations. Sol LeWitt's incomplete cubes are a perfect example. Indeed, I was attempting to generate an algebraic explanation for how many incomplete boxes there are, however, it may be a topological problem. The aesthetic that an incomplete box (or a specific incomplete box) creates is what Sol LeWitt may be dealing with.

Art finds the plane of new frontiers that frighten us, bewilder us, and look either too unfitting (ugly) or too in place (pretty) for us to pass by. Here we may misunderstand the incomplete cube, the neon glow. We may not grasp the entire picture. To judge this work differently because it is experimentation is a confounding idea. Ideally, all art is an experiment. All art is a work in progress. Just as neuroscience presses forward, so, we would expect, does art. Yes, acknowledging them as trials is acceptable, but experiment for experiment's sake is not art, it is a cheapening of ideas, an insecurity (I might add) in the message/feeling/result. I do not expect a sure answer, or even an answer, as communication between artist and viewer is an ongoing and sometimes dysfunctional thing. This brings me to a world-renown composer on the faculty of University of Michigan. Apparently his students compulsively change their pieces during rehearsals. This, I found, they learn from their teacher. What are they composing, background music? Oh, yes, I had better dim the oboe here for otherwise we might not be able to enjoy the curve of the man's thigh!

Art is for the artist alone. Art is not for the artist, it is for the viewer. If the art is not for the artist, what is the artist doing? If the art is not for the viewer, what is the artist doing. Again, this expresses the funk that experiments may place on the viewer. If your aim is to lose yourself in the viewer's eye, draw them in and quietly show them everything, but carefully. If you aim to lose your viewer, blast forth everything.

"What is art?" Challenging this is not art. Challenging this is challenging this. Pushing art is art.