I remember an assignment in photography class once when I just wandered around my apartment, taking double exposures to see what I’d capture. When I printed the photos, my prof refused to even look at them until I explained the “story” behind them, the “deeper meaning.” I made up some half-assed, angst-ridden narrative on the spot, and he was so pleased.
But a conversation and a work of art have two very different functions! So is it really unreasonable to say that an interlocutor’s intention matters even if an artist’s need not?
Certainly no one should outright demand you explain your art work. But really, if you are asked and don’t have much to say, there is nothing wrong with that person dismissing your art, having it not be taken seriously or no one wanting to pay you much for it. Not everything has to be explained. I do a lot of stuff, some that could be called art, which, if asked why I am doing it, is ‘just because’, and it’s essentially self indulgence. Which is fine too. The ‘problem’, if it can be called that, only arises if I expect people to take it seriously. Sure it’s nice if they do, and it’s great if someone wants to pay me enough for it that I don’t have to spend effort on survival, business or the bottom line of civilization. Art is important, but the reason it isn’t in every household, why society isn’t structured in a way where it is more part of our lives, and so much of it is commodity, shitty commercialism is because so many artists were willing to sell out. Not the only reason or main reason, to be sure.
I actually thought this strip was more or less in agreement with what this too.
Carrie was able to create a post-production explanation of their work, and I wonder how often that happens. I imagine that it is even more likely that one knows why they’re making thing in the middle of one’s work, and refines it to that purpose.
If meaning can be decided at any time, it can also be created by the observer. The artist’s thoughts are only important to those that want to study the artist. If intended meaning were important for being taken seriously, then we’d all ask the artist, instead of divining it from within ourselves.
November 19, 2010
As someone who’s had to put up with an archetypal douchebag art professor – thank you.
November 19, 2010
Damn. I like this one A LOT.
— MrJM
November 19, 2010
I remember an assignment in photography class once when I just wandered around my apartment, taking double exposures to see what I’d capture. When I printed the photos, my prof refused to even look at them until I explained the “story” behind them, the “deeper meaning.” I made up some half-assed, angst-ridden narrative on the spot, and he was so pleased.
November 19, 2010
Awesome. Punch line really got me!
November 19, 2010
But a conversation and a work of art have two very different functions! So is it really unreasonable to say that an interlocutor’s intention matters even if an artist’s need not?
November 19, 2010
dont we need to do ‘make clean’ first?
November 19, 2010
Wouldn’t the meaning be different if the burger was meat or vegetable-derived?
That slice: Cheese or tofu?
November 20, 2010
No amount of exacerbated sighs from Girl can keep me from “liking” this on FB.
November 20, 2010
excellent.
November 20, 2010
Hackneyed though it may be, I cannot help but link to tvtropes: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitledz7rgdh9wrk1?from=Main.WhatDoYOuMeanitsNotDidactic
November 21, 2010
At least Cat is only symbolically allergic to mustard.
November 22, 2010
This is my favorite Cat and Girl comic so far
November 22, 2010
But what does it mean?
November 23, 2010
Certainly no one should outright demand you explain your art work. But really, if you are asked and don’t have much to say, there is nothing wrong with that person dismissing your art, having it not be taken seriously or no one wanting to pay you much for it. Not everything has to be explained. I do a lot of stuff, some that could be called art, which, if asked why I am doing it, is ‘just because’, and it’s essentially self indulgence. Which is fine too. The ‘problem’, if it can be called that, only arises if I expect people to take it seriously. Sure it’s nice if they do, and it’s great if someone wants to pay me enough for it that I don’t have to spend effort on survival, business or the bottom line of civilization. Art is important, but the reason it isn’t in every household, why society isn’t structured in a way where it is more part of our lives, and so much of it is commodity, shitty commercialism is because so many artists were willing to sell out. Not the only reason or main reason, to be sure.
I actually thought this strip was more or less in agreement with what this too.
November 24, 2010
William…
huh ?
November 24, 2010
Girl is going to have spinal problems in 50 years if she don’t stop stooping like that.
June 10, 2012
Meaning in art cannot be created without knowledge of what meaning is being created.
June 13, 2012
Seriously, I tried to explain this theory to my AP art professor. She didn’t understand! This is relevant.
July 20, 2013
@Full Metal Lion: In your opinion En attendant Godot should not be art. Since Beckett’s got no idea what the heck the play should mean.
December 13, 2013
Carrie was able to create a post-production explanation of their work, and I wonder how often that happens. I imagine that it is even more likely that one knows why they’re making thing in the middle of one’s work, and refines it to that purpose.
If meaning can be decided at any time, it can also be created by the observer. The artist’s thoughts are only important to those that want to study the artist. If intended meaning were important for being taken seriously, then we’d all ask the artist, instead of divining it from within ourselves.
November 22, 2019
@Phil Is that a problem?