by lonnie broadvalley
You know those big, sweeping questions a teacher might ask like, ‘What makes us human?’ or ‘What is art for?’. Most likely it was at the start of a humanities class (art, history, cultural studies, philosophy, etc.). You kiddos might recognize these essential fields of study today as “electives” or “nap time.” Questions like these are designed to: (a) generate ANY response (b) demonstrate that there are MANY right answers, and (c) serve a heaping slice of humble pie to the honor students in the front row. By the time I had been in the art department for a few years, I looked forward to these questions. The most eloquent response to ‘What is art for?’ that I can remember is that art ‘… creates empathy.’ Nice one. This phrase stuck with me because it fits from any angle. When experiencing a song/play/poem/painting, we try to understand more about the artist, and from the artist’s perspective, the response can reveal a lot about their audience. When Life magazine did a big feature on Jackson Pollock in 1948, anointing him “The greatest living painter in the U.S.,” its citizens got their panties in such a twist, I don’t think art has been viewed in the same way since. Not only did you hear a lot of indignant responses like the popular,’ My kid could do that,’ but I think it actually pushed his art further from the culture that produced it. Sadly, this is the old story about rejection of the unfamiliar and it repeats again and again in art history. Fortunately, many people recognized the reaction for what it was and decided to view this new style with an open mind, considering the social and cultural clusterf*#k from whence it came. A popular example of this sort of exchange is Norman Rockwell’s 1961 painting titled, The Connoisseur, depicting a man with his back to us wearing a business suit and standing in front of a huge, abstract painting meant to look like a Jackson Pollock - all energy, drips, and splatters. I do wonder what the man thinks of the work but I really appreciate that Rockwell didn’t show this guy’s expression. When this was painted, a man in a suit like this represented a pretty conservative, white, middle class American male. To make this in 1961 is the artist’s way of saying, ‘See? We want to understand each other!’. I’m assuming a lot here but I believe that’s the gist of it. My point is that it doesn’t matter whether or not the guy in the painting likes the art, what matters is that he’s giving it some thought. Scott Bailey, head of the Art Department at Wenatchee Valley College asks his students to spend an entire class period in front of one piece in the MAC gallery. He explains that this is an incredible gift to an artist to spend time considering their work, giving it a chance to affect you beyond first impressions. When we think about our response to something/someone, hopefully some truth about ourselves is revealed.