Silliman's Papers

March 29, 2002
Art Response: holding forth on my theory of art
Dear Dr. Arnn,

Thank you for your letter. I appreciate the way you have handled your disagreement with me both in our discussion and in your letter. The way you have responded reaffirms my choice in Hillsdale College. Even if we disagree I appreciate that this has been discussed with openness and reason.

You asked me how is art progressive and how progress is to be measured. I am afraid the answer will not be as brief as the question.

From my study of art history I understand art to be progressive in two ways. First, art is progressive in that the artist is seeking a new way to express his ideas. No artist worthy of the name seeks to replicate art of the past, to say the same things in the same way as they were said before. The artist produces his own work; he does not reproduce the work of the past. This has been called seeking the new metaphor. Whether expressing new or old ideas the expression is ever new, ever untried, and experimental. Picasso may be the quintessential example. Cubism tries to express more than had been expressed before. Cubist painters sought to depict all aspects of the object—sides, the profile, its position in space, its relation to other objects—and not just the prima facie appearance of the art. Whether or not you believe they should have tried to depict more, or if they succeeded or failed, the example is one of progressivism, trying to find a new way to express something, even something as apparently straightforward as a portrait. Second, art is progressive in that the great artists, almost without exception, change the genre in which they work. The only exception I am aware of in the history of recognized great artists is N.C. Wyeth. Among artists, Wyeth is the only one who is both great and didn’t either change his school of art or create a new one. Consider Rembrandt. He established his career by astonishing his clients, by doing something with his work that no one had done before. In Rembrandt’s Anatomy Lesson, he breaks the traditions of the formal, stiff and evenly lit group portrait. Rembrandt violated these rules and won instant renown, establishing himself as a serious artist. Rembrandt is an example of both forms of progressivism in art. Rembrandt found a way to express himself as no one had been expressed before and he his changed the school of art.

The question naturally following, the one you asked, is in an ever-changing world of art, what makes a piece of art good? In order to answer this we have to deal with fundamental questions about the nature of art; we have to define it. It is hard to speak of art, what art is, and what makes it good, because it is so progressive. The definitions have always been nebulous and are being constantly pushed around and rearranged. Historically, definitions of art have been hard to come by. Last semester a presentation was given at Fairfield trying to determine a universal standard for good art. It is impossible to know what good art is, art that has succeeded in its purpose, when art itself is so ill defined. The presentation was disappointingly inconclusive, leaving one feeling that art is indefinable and good art is elusive. Following the presentation, I commented on the how the progressive, ever changing, nature of art (with artists establishing themselves by changing the genre or the field and by finding new ways of expressing their ideas) made classifications and definitions difficult.

In the following days I tried to find a broadened and simplified definition of art. I was looking for something that was “progress proof” and wouldn’t be overturned by the next new idea in the art world. I ignored the question of good art because I think good equals successful and success is defined by the definition. The definition I arrived at was: “Art is the expression of ideas through form.” This is similar to Hegel’s definition. He said, “Art is the fusion of idea and form.” I think we are saying the same thing as Hegel, but I am avoiding the convolution Hegel gets when he uses the word fusion. The word makes me think of physics with atoms and particles and explosions, so I avoided it. I think this definition is broad enough to encompass all breeds of artists and genres of art and withstand all changes in the field. I think the definition is broad enough to include Classical sculptors and Modernist and Postmodernist painters. Andy Warhol’s Brillo Boxes, Michelangelo’s David, Picasso’s cubist portraits, Rembrandt’s Night Watch, and Piss Christ all fall under this definition of art no mater how great or poor we personally think these works are. This definition is the only competent definition I have found and deals with the issues of art and good art sufficiently.

This definition separates the ideas and the expression of the ideas. The artist seeks to express ideas with his work, thus his success can be gauged by the quality of the expression. Inherent in this definition of art is the concept of successful art, good art, being the art that clearly expresses the ideas of the artist through the work.
Warhol’s art was supposed to express the idea lack of beauty in the modern world, the ugliness and conformity of a disposable pop culture. When I or another conservative respond to Warhol’s Brillo Boxes as trash we are getting what he intended, understanding, if in a limited way, Warhol’s idea. This means, using my definition of art, this is good art, that is, his ideas have been successfully expressed through the form. Of course I think his ideas are lousy and thus I do not prize his art, but I am making a distinction between good ideas and ideas expressed well. When we spoke over lunch I used the example of Mario Cuomo’s speech to the Democratic National Convention in San Francisco. While I disagreed with almost every phrase and certainly every idea he expressed, it was the best speech I have ever heard. I only mentioned Piss Christ in a passing reference in a single line of my opinion piece. I was trying to discount the objection that offensiveness was only a component of modern work and support the claim that art has often or always been controversial. In mentioning the crucifix inverted in a jar of urine I found myself on wrong side of an intense culture war. I have had many second thoughts about mentioning the work and probably could have won a few more readers to my point of view if I had seen fit to cut that seven-word sentence. Nevertheless, I can and have defended Piss Christ as good art. Given the above definition, art is the expression of ideas through form, then in gauging art we must look at its success in expressing the ideas of the artist. Using the example of Piss Christ, the idea of the artist is very clearly portrayed. Men have hated God since the fall. I know of no clearer portrayal of man’s hatred toward God than Piss Christ. As such it is good art, as good as anything created by Michelangelo. It is blasphemous and it is depraved, but it is a clear and distinct expression of these ideas. The cultural battles over art, as seen in the controversy about Piss Christ, have been misplaced. We must confront the ideas expressed and not the expression. For me to attach Mario Cuomo’s speech on oratorical grounds would be ridiculous. His speech was fine even though his ideas were awful. The battle is over the ideas, not the expression of the ideas.

You asked if art should be measured by its conformity to or offense against popular opinion. I don’t believe either option is correct. Art is not politics and should not be dealt with on a democratic or aristocratic measure. Art, to be successful, should be a clear expression of an idea. Neither offense nor agreement is a good measures of artistic quality. At the same time, art cannot weigh into the ideological war without causing some to agree and others to disagree. If art is expressing something then some people will take issue (or one side has already won the ideological conflict). Many have interpreted my article to read that offensiveness equals good art. I don’t mean that and don’t believe I said that. However, enough people have interpreted my opinion piece in this manner that I wish I had taken more time to clarify the point in my original piece. I do not believe in offense for offense sake, but it is certainly part of the war of ideas. As Hillsdale has been fond of saying, ideas have consequences. Piss Christ is a prime case. As a Christian, I believe this ideological battle is the battle of history. Man’s relationship to God and God’s law is the implicit question of all other ideological questions. Piss Christ is the clear and distinct depiction of one sides claim in this argument. No idea has greater consequence than the ideas expressed by that piece of art. The counter art to Piss Christ, the crucifix, expressing the opposite claim, is also offensive. The death of Christ is offensive to everyone in rebellion against God. The art is not good because it is offensive but is offensive because it clearly expresses an important idea.

You said your concern in this matter was in my ideas and my education. I hope you see that though my opinion piece was provocative and aggressive, it was not unfounded. The dialogue I have had in response to my piece has been a good education. In defending my points, I have expanded my knowledge of art and its history. Disagreement, argument, and dialogue are a solid and beneficial part of a liberal arts education that I am actively partaking in here at Hillsdale.

I apologize for the length of this letter. I have attempted to be clear and thorough, and that seemed to require me to broaden the issue and fill in the surrounding landscape. I will be speaking on art at the Fairfield society on Monday, April 15 and would like to invite you to that presentation. I definitely welcome any further discussion in any forum that will best accommodate our dialogue.
May God bless you and your family,

Daniel Silliman