“If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” This philosophical question, often debated by beginning philosophy students, poses fundamental questions about observation and the nature of reality.
Not long ago I had a conversation with a person on a similar philosophical question: “If a work of art is not seen or does not connect with an audience, is it “Art”? My co-debater on this topic was a well-know art dealer/gallery owner and professional mentor to artists.
She argued that a work cannot be called “Art” if it doesn’t reach an audience in some way.
I used to be a painter and part of my local art scene. I studied art history and arts management and even to this day often visit art galleries. And, I’ve done a lot of exploring of “expressive arts”. That day of our conversation, I felt compelled to take the side that “art is Art”, whether it is done for entertainment, for healing, or for sale; even if it does not connect with or is ever even seen by an audience, it is Art. But, I could been arguing between the opposites in my artistic psyche.
In writing about this, I am reminded of the exquisitely beautiful paintings of prehistoric animals in caves at Lascaux, France. For the people who made them, making the paintings must have been an illuminating experience in an otherwise dark space and dark age.
The paintings at Lascaux were hidden for tens of thousands of years before they were discovered by a group of schoolboys in 1940. Afterward, thousands of people viewed them, so many in fact that the light and air circulation needed for the visitors was destroying the paintings. A decision was made in the 1950’s to close the caves and create replicas for viewing near the site.
Are they “Art”? — since all those thousands of years they were not seen and have not been seen since for decades. Most assuredly. As any art historian will tell you, a Western Art History survey course will often begin with cave art.
Do art historians understand the paintings? Not really. They can still only speculate on their meanings and the reasons for their creation. Many think they were made during ritual or shamanic enactments, possibly during initiations of young boys into their hunting culture.
From photos taken of the paintings, a viewer can see a keenness of observation, essential simplicity, and care in execution, such that one can imagine a profound spiritual connection between the artists and the animals. Additionally, certain placements of skulls and skeletons found in many prehistoric caves imply a sacred, even ritualistic treatment of the awesome cave bear, for instance.
Learning about the cave paintings and art history in general has educated my understanding that creating art can be a spiritual act for the artist. I’m backed up in that view by the centuries of religious paintings I studied and that anyone can see in museums and cathedrals across Europe, in fact, all over the world.
So, I believe that Art’s purpose can be served even if an artist never shows their work to anyone. Herein lies the core idea I expressed to the art gallery owner – that subjective, idiosyncratic “art”, even if not understood, has a lofty purpose. It is “Art”, whether or not anyone appreciates, understands, or even sees it. The purpose of Art is insured just in the making.