The Irrelevance of the Artist

The last time my parents visited Ann Arbor, we took a walk in the chilly weather to the Ross building. Though I’ve lived in Ann Arbor for a while, my parents had never really visited until then and I was eager to show them the interesting and beautiful architecture around campus, especially the school I studied in.

As we were approaching the building, I pointed out the bronze sculpture next to Lorch Hall that vaguely resembled bones. I asked my dad what he thought it was and he immediately walked up to the corresponding plaque to read the provided information. He was surprised that it only contained the author’s name, not his intentions or his core message.

I asked him why the author’s intentions mattered. And I pose the same question to you.

The artist is the creator of a provocation. A piece that represents, challenges, or illustrates something he or she has observed. It is a direct interaction with society. But it has nothing to do with you.

Art is not meant to be a definite, a concrete the way we prefer things to be, a constant that is reliable, or a fact we can memorize. It is fluid and abstract and that is the most terrifying and breathtaking thing about it. It can mean everything, anything, and nothing, all at the same time. It is not the physical piece itself but the emotion and thought the viewer or participant feels and thinks upon experiencing it.

My room, without a doubt, at any time, on any day, is covered with newspaper, tubes of paint, charcoal, and baubles I use to express myself. When I make something, I do it almost intuitively – my hands know what colors I want to use, where I want the lips to go, which buttons to use to form human hair – and when I am done, I am done. I no longer have a part in it and neither does any artist. They are transformed from being a creator to an observer of their art and their opinion of what it means and what it represents are as important or as arbitrary as anyone else’s.

We have the innate desire to look at something and understand everything about it. We look to figures of authority to do so, people with experience and knowledge. In art, we turn to the artist. But this would imply that there is something about art that is a fact. Something that remains constant no matter who stands in front it. This is wrong. As much as the concept of universal human emotions is touted as some unquestionable truth, it is not. While something beautiful like a smile can invoke the same warmth in my heart as it can in the heart of someone from a completely different background, it has different implications, different effects, and is the manifestation of different thoughts.

An artist stating what their art means is an artist telling you what you should think and feel when you experience their art, which defies the inherent purpose and essential quality of art. The interaction between the physical piece and the participant that is art is tremendously intimate and cannot be explained.

The plaque did not lack information. In fact, it had more than what was necessary.