I may post this rant on Bulldrek, or on my own forums, but for now, I just want to rant. Nobody to argue with, just ranting. Just pure, unadulterated rantation. Me, being of sound rantage, and my journal, being my Medium du Rant.
I want to talk about art, or rather, about a recurring discussion I have with Moulsari about art. She’s an artist, you see, and she knows a lot of stuff about other artists, their work, and the meaning of art. But there is one thing we vehemently disagree on; I say art has a function as a carrier of information. She says that art isn’t always about information and that art, sometimes, is just something pretty to look at. Actually, I’m not doing her stance much justice in the way I’ve worded it, but let me just say that she makes a strong case.
From the very first pieces of human art, to the latest, greatest, true modern art, it has always carried a message. Carried information. Pictures speak, which is why cavemen started doodling on the walls of their caves. Wooden figurines, icons and statues were widdled from pieces of wood, and patterns were drawn in sand. This was all done with a purpose, and in every inception of art, of creation, there is purpose. Sometimes the purpose is subtle, sometimes even so subbtle that nobody except the creator understands the message. To be quite honest, I seriously dislike the idea of creating something that nobody understands. Sure, subtlety is nice, elitism can be understood, but something that nobody understands is…well, odd. I mean, sure, certain artists might use their art as a medium to express their troubled minds, inadvertedly leaving everyone baffled and confused, but their expression is like reaching out…they’re trying to communicate to the world. Sometimes they make something that is so deeply personal that they won’t share it with the world, and they keep it to themselves, as a reminder perhaps. In these cases, they express themselves and decide not to share it. Like not sharing a thought, for instance.
But when you do share something, make sure that the person you’re trying to reach understands what you are trying to say. There is no point in sharing if the other doesn’t understand. You might as well have said nothing.
Some people think that art is about pretty things. It’s not. Nine out of ten pieces of art are, aesthetically, really ugly. They usually give an impression of something. They convey information about a forgotten era, about the personality of society, or they give an impression about the state of mind the artists were in. But art is never just pretty. It’s always more than just fucking pretty, it’s about information, and the transfer thereof. The sharing of knowledge and wisdom.
Now we get to the discussion Mouls and I often have. She will often show me websites that she considers artistic, creative or impressive. Usually, I end up saying that those pages are about form, not function, and that the function of a webpage – and the function of art – is to convey information. Especially webpages are about information, sharing information. The whole medium was born from information, as were all other media, including art! It’s all about sharing knowledge and wisdom, and if you create a webpage that is just nice to look at, and has no function other than being beautiful, having shit navigation, an incomprehensible theme, or something else “artistically trendy,” then it’s dead. It’s nothing. You’ve created thin air that anyone will be tired of in mere seconds.
The Internet is about information. It’s a medium to pass on information from one computer to the next, and from your computer to your senses, and from your senses into your brain. Art is about information. It’s a medium to pass on information. Art is not about beauty, it’s about truth!