This is the second post in
my series of case studies attempting to hierarchize different uses of media according
to a utilitarian rubric. See my qualitative methodology for assessing media effectiveness for background information.
My strategy is to choose
iconic works that can stand in for larger genres or styles of work. Thus my
first post examined Avatar, a film
that can easily stand in for “Hollywood blockbusters,” and my second deals with
Marcel Duchamp’s The Fountain, which
can stand in for most conceptual art.
Strength of Impact:
1. How many people does the project reach?
2. How significantly does it impact the people it reaches?
3. How likely are the people it impacts to spread this impact?
4. How long lasting is its impact?
5. How grave was the issue pre-impact?
My
answers:
1. High
2. Medium
3. Medium
4. Medium
5. Low
Explanation:
The Fountain does not
have the mass appeal of Avatar, but
it does have an iconic status that has lasted nearly a century. It is probably
the most well known work of “found object” art. Although knowing of the piece’s
existence is highly correlated with class, education, and geographic location,
the work’s notoriety is wide enough that I don’t hesitate in answering SoI-1
with a “High.”
Answering SoI-2 through
SoI-4 requires us to clarify what we’re looking to answer with these questions.
On one hand, engaging with Dadaist art isn’t directly involved in the
enhancement of wellbeing or the reduction of suffering – although artists do
rank fairly high on happiness lists, despite earning less money than many other
professions. Encountering postmodernist philosophy through art intuitively
shouldn’t make a major difference in one’s wellbeing. On the other hand, the
SoI questions don’t directly pertain to assessments of wellbeing. All they try
to uncover is how forcefully an artwork alters people, not whether the
alterations in question have any impact on happiness.
The Fountain probably
impacts those it reaches more effectively than does Avatar. Although Avatar
is likely to entertain viewers, the experience is short-lived and unlikely to
change the person’s character in any way. Due to the de-emphasizing of the
aesthetic experience in Duchamp’s work, The
Fountain challenges viewers to engage with it intellectually. In other
words, it raises questions that audience members are actually likely to grapple
with: What makes something art? If this is art, what makes art valuable? Should
there be rules to art? How should we view the artist? Do the artist’s
intentions matter? Is provocation inherently good or bad? Is it bad to accept
conventions?
In grappling with these
questions, I submit that people are likely to change or clarify their views. At
the very least, they are likely to be intellectually engaged, even if they wind
up with silly interpretations of the work.
SoI-5 receives a “Low” for
the same reason that Avatar and most
other works of art and entertainment receive one: they appeal to people with
enough money and comfort to take interest in them.
On the whole, I rate The Fountain’s ability to affect people
as “Medium.” But are its effects net harmful or helpful?
Quality of Impact:
1. How much does it increase the accuracy of people's models of
reality?
2. How much does it improve people's quality of life?
3. How much more likely does it make people to act altruistically
toward others?
My
answers:
1. 0
2. +1
3. 0
Explanation:
Although The Fountain affects people by provoking
thought and challenging norms, its net impact is barely better than neutral.
One thing that stands in The Fountain’s way of positive effects
is its unlikeliness to direct viewers toward truer beliefs. The piece is just
as likely, if not more likely, to provoke incoherent philosophical thoughts
than it is to provoke rational, correct ones. So while the work might awaken
people from a mindless slumber, it doesn’t make them more likely to believe
true things about the world.
Nor does it make people
more likely to behave altruistically toward others. Engagement with narrative
fiction is likely to have a civilizing effect on individuals, but general
appreciation of conceptual art is not. Many Nazis were sophisticated,
intelligent people, but that didn’t do them, or anyone else, much good.
The piece scores its only
point by raising questions in readers. This is very likely to have net good
effects. Although many people will come to incoherent or weak philosophical
positions when provoked, some will not, and others will eventually outgrow
their old positions.
No comments:
Post a Comment