Thoughts on “Creating the Culture of Art”
In her book, “Believing is Seeing: Creating the Culture of Art,” Mary Anne Staniszewski delves into the rich history of Western perception of what “Is” and “Isn’t” A/art. Staniszewski begins her analysis with a brief definition of what Art “is.” She claims that in order for a certain work to be considered “Art,” the work must have been created for the purpose of self-expression and creative aesthetic pleasure. This definition excludes many great works that might be considered Art, such as the Venus of Willendorf, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, or the Mona Lisa. In fact, Staniszewski writes, the very concept of Art was only invented in the past two hundred years, rendering all previous works distinctively Not Art. Later in her book, Staniszewski discusses the relationship between the artist and the subject, specifically the disproportionate lack of attention and opportunity female artists receive compared to male artists. “Believing is Seeing” is written from a strong feminist perspective that does not hesitate to address the lack of female representation throughout history in the art world. This attention to gender inequality, although seemingly non-intersectional, continues as Staniszewski details the rise and fall of the Academy, the architectural and metaphorical design of the modern museum, the political and social forces behind the Modernist Movement, the iconical figures of Pop Art and the Avant-Garde, and the always intertwining connection between A/art and Culture in the present day.
Although I found the distinction between “Art” and “Not art” helpful and thought-provoking, I became more immersed in the text as the book continued past its opening chapter. I was intrigued by the relationship noted between art and property as well as the indication that art is “freedom.” In chapter two, when Staniszewski writes about the popular act of graffiti or “tagging” physical spaces, I thought of the difference between “tagging” and “street art.” In the United States, there is a contextual, constructed notion that graffiti is not art but insubordination. Staniszewski illustrates this point on page 108: “In 1992, for example, [NYC] spent $7.8 million getting rid of the graffiti on its subway stations and trains.” When I traveled in Chile, I stayed in a city that had a very different approach to discouraging tagging. In Valparaiso, Chile there is an unwritten agreement that graffiti artists will not tag murals or paintings and instead tag bare walls. So, building managers and landlords will commission street artists to create urban art on walls, sidewalks, and structures to avoid “ugly” graffiti. This produces funding for artists and contributes to the color and beauty of the city. Instead of discouraging street art all together, the government of Valparaiso celebrates alternative art forms. I think this difference between U.S art culture and other perspectives is related to the racial, class, and gender discrimination that the Academy perpetuated for centuries.
Another chapter of Staniszewski’s book that captured my attention was the analysis of art in popular culture, beginning with modern art. Unlike some of my classmates, I have not taken any art history courses, so the section about Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso (p 207) was new to me. When I think of Picasso, I think of a few similar images in his Cubist style. Before reading “Believing is Seeing,” I never knew about his artful play with Braque or the consequential dismantling of “early modern mythology surrounding creativity (207).” I agree with what Staniszewski writes: “Creativity”--and thus, art--is dependent upon things that exist outside of the self.
In her book, Staniszewski summarizes what I have long suspected about art and other “Great” works. Nothing has intrinsic worth. Everything, from language to love, has value projected upon it by the inventors and the consumers of the concept. While one can take a nihilistic approach to this revelation, I choose to see some absolute beauty in the notion that people, communities, and eventually civilizations can come together and agree that something is lovely, or that something is special, or that something has worth. It means that art cannot exist alone, simply because it is “Art.” Art must be created and discussed and assigned and released and destroyed and created again. Staniszewski’s title is true: believing is seeing, because a person or people must believe something into having meaning.
I’ve collected many take-aways from Believing is Seeing but one of the most amusing comes from the last chapter, “Art and Culture Today.” Staniszewski asks, “How has the meaning of Van Gogh’s Sunflowers been altered, now that it was bought at auction for $40 million? (288)” To me, that fact merely means that an art collector somewhere is out forty million dollars. I have the same Van Gogh piece hanging on my living room wall, on a paper poster that I bought for less than five dollars on the internet. I love that poster. Sunflowers are my favorite plant, and I think Van Gogh is one of the most influential colorists of his time. Do I get any less pleasure gazing at my $5 dollar poster than the art collector does looking at their $40 million original? I suppose one could never really say, but that the comparison exists is astounding to me. I take joy from the image and the artist; the method in which those components are delivered to me do not matter. Once, I saw a show titled “Van Gogh Alive,” in which massive renderings of Van Gogh’s paintings were projected in motion across the interior walls of an old church. Fragments of his writing were projected as well, and orchestral music played in an arrangement that the Academy certainly did not approve. And the experience was amazing. The show was untraditional, non-commissioned, and only cost me about twenty dollars. The show was Art because of the meaning I constructed and believed. The action component of the show asked me to see art differently. As Staniszewski wraps up her book, she echoes my sentiment: “artists prepare the mind and spirit for new ideas--new ways of seeing” (289). If we use this standard to determine what “is” art, then Mary Anne Staniszewski’s book is a great piece of art as well.
