Meaning versus Decoration. Does art need to have meaning?
I have been learning about proposals for art grants lately. A common critique I get on my proposals is that I am to focused on the what I am making and what medium I am using. I need to focus more on the meaning behind it and why I am making it in the first place. I have been thinking about this question a lot. Does art need to have meaning? Why can’t art just be pretty? Is art without meaning no longer art? If it is not art then what is it?
“Art without meaning is just decoration.”
Rick Rubin seems to think that art without meaning is decoration, but can’t art with meaning be used as decoration? Where is the line between the two? Who decides what art has meaning and what doesn’t. I often think of the quote so often used but so little understood.
“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
Such a simple phrase captures a huge concept so perfectly! Beauty is not objective it is individual to each person. Some may view Da Vinci’s art as a master piece but others may see it as chicken scratch. If what is considered beautiful is subjective why can’t meaning?
An artist may have an intended message or meaning behind their work but not every one will understand it. Perhaps, on the other side the artist just wanted to make a pretty picture, but a viewer applies meaning to it based on their own experiences.
Meaning is pulled from our experiences, opinions, and beliefs. As a whole, meaning can only be seen through the lens of our own life experiences. This concept can go both ways. An artist may make art with an extremely deep and personal meaning that no one else in the world will see because it is unique to their life lens.
In conclusion I don’t think that art should be forced to have meaning. Some art will and some won’t but that all depends on the beholder and what lens they use.
