|
When one asks an artist about a
facet of said artist's work, one assumes that the artist, since she is
the creator, has a privileged perspective in regard to her work. But is
this assumption valid? When one chooses to act, one is making the
decision to transition from being above to in. Prior to acting, one can consider many actions to perform but once one chooses and becomes entrenched in the action, one becomes immediately biased for that action. [1]
Creation
as action is no different. An artist can consider, plan, strategize,
but once he commences in the creation, he is playing and not coaching.
Then again, equating the creation of an artwork with an action may be a
stretch. A parallel between the creative process and a series of
actions is better. This shift in thought allows for there to be gaps
between actions. Artists commonly use these gaps as chances to go from
"shake it all about" to "out" where they can refocus their lens. Also,
these gaps permit valid inquiries into process. A viewer who was either
privy to the progress of the work or can recognize specific "gap
decisions"can now celebrate or criticize a specific twist or turn into
the evolution of the work. One can ask, "Why did you choose to place a
blue veil here?" And the artist, can dive back into gap X and retrieve
his reasoning for "why blue veil."
Now,
what if an artist disregarded gaps? What if the artist decided to act
(without even previous strategy) and not back up or step out? What if,
in G.E.M. Anscombe's method of examining "Why?" questions (in fact, my
entire investigative process here is mimetic of her deductions but
within the context of art), the artist "just swam" through the current
of creative dilemmas without reason? This method would naturally seem
to make the artistic output more susceptible to criticism because the
viewer will seemingly bear many unconsidered options and can therefore
impart a vast amount of propositions for potential "others" of the
given work. "Well, what if you did Y? Did you consider Y? What if you
did Z? Did you consider Z?" And since the artist disregarded all gaps
in which Y may have come up, there's a great chance that the viewer
will overwhelm the artist with variable constructions that the artist
left unexamined.
The
answer "I just did it this way" is left in the dust in such situations
and will not be accepted, especially in the academic context. "I just
did it this way" is not a reason for 'Why?' and leaves the artist
vulnerable to multileveled attacks. But what if the artist says, "I
followed my intuition"? Does this response change the situation? How is
intuition different from "I just did it?" In Anscombe's considerations
of intent, she comments on her wish to avoid "irreducible intuition."
Her main reasoning is that it ends inquiry. Intuition is a logically
unjustifiable private cause with feeling as guide. When one plays the
"intuition card" one is denying critical inquiry. Because 'Why?' is
ended by "it's what I felt."
Or
is it? Can intuition be different in separate circumstances? What if we
consider the fourth stage of competence (I forget where I learned the
stages of competence from but they are not my own) in which an acquired
skill is able to be employed unconsciously? The four stages of
competence are unconscious incompetence...when one does not
know how to succeed at learning a skill and as of yet is unaware of
what keeps them from understanding why they fail, conscious incompetence
is when one has learned enough to know why they aren't successful at
mastering a certain skill and what they have to do to progress, conscious competence is when one has acquired said skill but still has to concentrate intensely to perform it, and unconscious competence is when one has learned a skill to the point of mastering it and one can do perform it easily or "intuitively?"
Can
one's intuition be learned? Is the intuition of an amateur different
from the intuition of a master? It seems so. Once one has practiced
said skill for a long period of time, memory acquired through
repetition can lead to a kind of learned intuition. So, can
the answer, "I did it intuitively" be acceptable from a master and not
from a student? Perhaps...since the fourth level of skill competence is
only accomplished by mastery. And by definition, a student is not a
master. A student claiming conclusion by intuition is inherently a
suspect claim that cannot be validated until the student becomes the
professor. Then, perhaps, intuition can be a justifiable reason.
But
even so, is it then irreducible? If a master intuitively works, does
that mean we cannot validly question or "breakdown" her intent? Or are
their concepts so ingrained in their intuitive practice that said ideas
are immediately apparent through the product? Such questions seem too
contextual for abstract inquiry. And in this line of questions skill
and idea are too blurred. Just because a master intuitively practices a
skill that does not mean that there isn't a new concept subject to
criticism influencing their intuitive use of a skill. A painter who is
skilled at hyperrealism could be applying a new idea as a guide for
this specific use of hyperrealism. And even if their hyperrealist skill
can't be questioned, their idea, context, or method for employing the
skill can be criticized.
This exploration is leading to skill
and I want to veer it back for a summary of what I've thought so far.
Action is blind, the artist's ability to implement gaps between action
during creation allow the artist to "step out" and consider what she's
done and what she will do, an artist who disregards these gaps has a
better chance of leaving many unconsidered aspects that can then be
brought to surface by the professor to show the student's lack of
awareness, the last comment is dependent upon the artist's maturity
level, i.e., a master's ignorance of gaps is due to learned intuition
(unconscious competence) whereas a student's dismissal of gaps seems
premature and, finally, even though a master's skill is immediately
apparent (or it is?), the concept behind his employment of skill in a
certain manner can be criticized.
I still wrestle with the idea
of "learned intuition" and maybe it's because of the use of the word
"intuition." Previously I thought of intuition as immediate awareness
guided by feeling without thought...the fleeting temporality of
immediacy probably led to me holding any kind of "learned immediacy"
suspect. But it seems that from practice, one can, in the mode of
muscle memory (muscles can be trained to do certain movements
naturally), simply employ a skill "intuitively."
There's a
logical inconsistency in the above text. My consideration of a
student's dismissal of gaps transitions into an examination of a master
doing "the same thing." But in this transition, I seemingly change from
talking about a work being entirely completed intuitively to a skill being used intuitively.
The young student denied all conscious intermediate reflections and the
master was just not questioning his own skill (an absurd inquiry in the
first place). So, if the master disregards all considerations of
context, form, concepts, etc. by saying "I made the work intuitively"
this action may be more justified due to the master's years of experience but it still defeats inquiry.
And when I say 'inquiry" I mean inquiry directed at the artist. Of
course, people can discuss the work critically amongst themselves
(which may lead to a better conclusion anyway due the questionable
notion of the artist's privileged perspective...especially under the
guise of intuition). But investigations of intent by the viewer will go
unsatisfied if the artist claims intuition.
[1] however,
when one prods an artist about a work, it is understood that the artist
is no longer in the action but assumably has had time to reflection
upon "the action" and perhaps her privileged perspective comes from
being strategist, creator, and reflector...this view renders the artist less blind.
Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
![video art [PAM] logo](http://www.perpetualartmachine.com/templates/corp/images/video_art_pam_44.jpg)
