The two most influential things in any given culture or society are religion and art. They both deal with the questions of the human condition; Who am I? Where am I? Where am I going? Joseph Campbell put it best:
(1) The “psychological” question, “Who am I?”
(2) The sociological question, “Who are we?”
(3) The cosmological question, “What is the nature of the universe in which we live?”
(4) The epistemic question, “What is the nature of our knowledge about the answers to all these questions?”
Religion provides answers to these questions in various doctrines, and art explores these questions, evolving into new questions and possible answers. Art considers common and not so common ideas juxtaposed in relationships that most would not otherwise consider, leading to new insights into the subject, and into ourselves.
What about science? Science interprets the world as much as it determines it. And I would say that arguably science is both a form of art and religion depending on its methodology. But because the scientist is interpreting findings from the context of a human being in a social structure, he or she cannot be divorced from artistic or religious influence and practice, and therefore, can never be completely unbiased. Even the math we “invent” is considered in many theoretical circles more of a result of our intense desire to have answers, to the point that our experiments are perhaps influenced and biased in a way that elicits subjective results which become the new definition of our existence. And the new technology we invent for the measurement of things may inadvertently be creating the very thing we suspect exists.
These inventions of instruments are designed with the intention of measuring something we suspect exists. The more acute and accurate these instruments get, the more abstract the detail of our existence it will manifest. Was it always there? Or are we causing its manifestation through the act of observation? Sometimes the experiments reveal something completely unexpected, and from our perspective we attempt to make sense of it in our subjective context.
So what is art? Art is an aesthetic born from creativity, provoked from intuition, and cultivated from the greater sum of one’s experiences, knowledge, wisdom, intuition and intimacy. It is a tool to explore the human condition. Its success, simply, is defined by how well it is communicated. I may not like what I see, but if I understand the message (or “un-message), it has succeeded. I may like it, I may hate it, but at least I was able to interpret it in the context the work proposed. The composer’s goal is to impart his logic in a manner that can be perceived and understood, even on a metaphysical or transcendental level. And that method of logic that the artist presupposes is the signal on which he carries his message.
Art is the human condition realizing its depths of intimacy. Philosophizing and articulating about the work of art gives the work perpetual life. It does not subtract from its potential. In fact, it makes it more profound and fuels its life. I’m sure many would arguably agree that the written/spoken word is the most powerful. Oratory, and books, have been responsible for the most heinous and miraculous historical events in recorded history. Words are the most powerful art. I’ve heard artists say that words take away from that which can only be said in an alternate medium, but I disagree. Words are the companion, the articulator and philosopher that deepens the experience of the abstract and universal. Art gives insight into the human condition through the attempt of articulating the feelings and ideas it gives us. It is where the essence of life itself exists.
Exploring these ideas and their implications brings us to the whys and hows of art, its function, and its contribution. Art is communication, and in order to express an artistic endeavor one must be able to communicate at some comprehensible level.
So if you are going to attempt a piece of art about nothing, then you are communicating such. The concept of nothing is something. What would make such a work profound is the artist’s endeavor to expose nothingness from a perspective that is unique, and incite the audience into thinking about nothing in ways they haven’t thought before.
If you bother to create a work of art, then you must be able to speak the language of the medium that you are using competently. Then, a basis of logic must be established with the audience. This is powerful because you set up the audiences thinking in a syntax that you determine, at which point you can carry your message on that established logic and influence them in profound ways. If you can change the way people think, you can change the world.
The more specific the message of the composition, the more accessible and universal it becomes. A work of art can only achieve ideal universality by succinct specificity. Many composers create dumbed down general art thinking they can make it more universal and more accessible to as many as possible. This won’t work. There is no means in the intent of the piece to establish an intimate connection with the audience, and the piece will fail. It may affect the audience through novelty and spectacle, but that is something altogether different.
Philosophers are still haggling over how we come to know things. The artist takes what we know and offers perspectives we haven’t thought of before in order to gain more insight into that knowledge. Art challenges knowledge and its interpretation. Whether you are looking through a microscope or through the human condition, the feelings of beauty and dread experienced from both are tangible and legitimately real. Art is for the smelling and tasting, the touching and feeling, and the dissecting. Art is an intimate act that is to be cherished whether it ravages our soul or beautifies our spirit.