The Smiley Smile Message Board

I came across this quote in a book about art history.  Though it is attributed to Picasso I have not tried to verify its authorship as I am more interested in the quote itself.  Regardless of the authorship, what do you think of this quote:

"Why do you try to understand art?  Do you try to understand the song of a bird?"

EoL

I think that's a popular sentiment: that art isn't there to be understood, or reasoned, but rather enjoyed only on some aesthetic (or spiritual?) level.

I reject that approach. Every art form with which I'm familiar has some underlying structures, some frames, that one must understand to appreciate. That understanding might be natural, e.g., hearing simple songs (thus absorbing basic melodic structure, harmonic progression, forms, etc.), or it might be through more formal learning. But something beyond "the song of a bird" is going on: it's a craft and an art.

I think there's a kind of primitivism that is fun to daydream about, but is unrealistic. True art flows naturally to, through, and from those touched artists (I really think that plays into the "idiot genius" paradigm), and one ought just absorb it.

All that said, there is something beyond simple (or complex!) craft happening in great art. And that part of it might be beyond understanding. There is such thing as analyzing something to death, squeezing the life out of it.

One can enjoy something without understanding it; one can also find more enjoyment with understanding, though.

Very well put.

I think that there is more to Picasso's point than saying that art should be enjoyed rather than analyzed.

Rather, certain forms of art can evoke a reaction simply in and of itself and, in many ways, this can be the point of the object. Take, for example, Eliot's The Waste Land. When reading it, it seems incoherent, strange, unsettling and creates a feeling of confusion in its reader. Many critics have tried to figure out what the poem really means "underneath it all," but to me, this whole idea of "underneath it all" really misses the point. Yes, one could very well figure out why Eliot chose to use the source texts he used and one could talk about how the poem searches and, in many ways, locates a new kind of structure. But ultimately the poem is really about evoking in the reader the kind of feeling that many were feeling in post-war England - confusion, displacement, fragmentation, etc.

You can say the same about Ezra Pound's imagist poems - they are meant to create the same effect with language that is created by placing two different images atop one another and, in doing so, makes us see the two images in a completely different way. When looking at such a picture, the point isn't necessarily "what does it mean?" but, rather, the point has been achieved the moment you look at it. To me, once you really work to explain "what it means," you, in fact, create a step removed from what the artistic object actually is. I say this as a literature scholar but this is why I think criticism is ultimately an inferior act to the art itself because ultimately you lose the real meaning of a project when you begin to explain it in different terms. If you really want to know what a Picasso painting was trying to do, there's no better explanation of it than the painting itself. And I think this is what Picasso is getting at. I'm not sure if any of that makes any sense...

I like this quote.

I feel people spend too much time overthinking art (ie. music, movies, etc), and not enough time enjoying it. 

It makes perfect sense, considering the source. And I think it's particularly pertinent to a lot of work of the time. I think the quote is rather broad, as I think it would only apply to some art, but that opens the question of what is art. I think some art is intended to communicate something particular, and succeeds. Some is actually just meant to be pretty or fun. But I agree that most 'high' art, particularly since the early 20th century is more abstract (not the precise word I want and I'm not referring to Abstract Art) and Picasso helped make that so. Though, one might argue that it's always so, in that whatever the intent of the creator, the 'meaning' is in the reaction of the audience.

I prefer Picasso's last words: "Drink to me...". :beer

I wish I could find time to put my thoughts together and post in this thread again as there are a couple of points/questions I wanted to make/ask.  In short, I believe Picasso was giving us a look at his philosophical worldview (whether on purpose or not).  I'm not particularly concerned about Picasso.  I am interested in the philosophy behind the comment.  If my suspicion is correct, then I want to look at his art and see if further evidence can be found.  Hopefully I will have time soon.  Hopefully at least the Captain will humor me.  :)

In the meantime, thank you to those who posted your thoughts.

Have a good weekend everyone!

EoL

Should I be flattered or offended, my good man?  ;D

I once foolishly mentioned to a professor of modern art that Picasso's Guernica looked quite haphazard to me and he spent the best part of an hour angrily explaining why it was anything but haphazard. Makes you wonder what Pablo would have said... 

I've never been too fond of people having to approve of something as art, before it can officially become "Art", either. I'm not trying to derail the thread, but have any of you seen "Finding Vivian Maier"? It's fantastic, and the woman had a very keen eye. A lot of work was really beautiful, and yet there were "experts" who didn't want to recognize it as "real art". Who gives a sh*t? I think that art is up to the individual person. Someone sees a white canvas with paint splashed on it and thinks it's trash, while someone else considers it a masterpiece. Who's right, and who's wrong? Doesn't it only matter to the individual?