ART OF COMPLAINT
October 1994

When Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel, he put both the major prophets and a few of the minor prophets between the lunettes in the ceiling. Behind each of the prophets are the cherubim bringing inspiration and vision. One observer has said you can tell the difference between the major prophets and the minor prophets because only the major prophets are listening.

We have said that the true artist pays attention to the inner voice, the illumination of the soul,  that draws one into the depths of his or her own being to acquire “in-spiration” and “in-sight.” This going within can provide the artist with a rich source of creativity and ideas that when joined to talent and discipline can occasionally produce enduring works of art in all its forms.

However, we must also recognize that the source of inspiration and insight most often lies beyond oneself. It is not only the artist’s interaction with his or her own psyche that is important, but also one’s own interaction with one’s environment and culture. We live in symbiosis; we influence our society even as we are shaped by our society. Art imitates life and life imitates art.

Much of the criticism being directed against art in our culture today has nothing to do with technical achievement, but is focused on the message itself. It is a criticism of the light rather than the object that is illuminated. This is justified to some extent for even light is subjective in its tint, its focus, and its intensity. But to find art offensive because it is controversial, or does not represent my particular social or family values, or does not make me feel good and warm all over, is to deny the intent of art itself. If art is not confrontational it becomes mere decoration. If art is to be a vehicle of communication it must first command my attention, challenge my perspectives, and cause me to reexamine my own thinking.

Robert Hughes, in his book The Culture of Complaint, says that the American taxpayer contributes $0.68 to the support of the arts every year, compared to $27 in Germany and $32 in France. He makes the point that where government has supported the arts to such a great extent, as in Holland where the state has purchased the works of some 8,000 Dutch artists, so much art was produced that the public regards 98% of it as junk. (The artists think it’s all junk except their own work.) His point is that if art isn’t elitist we could end up with a garbage-disposal problem.

There are millions of volumes of books in the Library of Congress, many of which should not have been allowed to contribute to the deforestation of our country. But who is there that should be the judge of what ideas may circulate? In a democracy that encourages the free flow of ideas I cannot deny the right of anyone to produce or to purchase or to be impressed by junk. We all respond to different stimuli and even the junk is necessary if it established even one link of communication. More than one city has been built on a garbage heap.

Not everyone will be able to produce great works of art that will endure and challenge, but everyone ought to be encouraged to try, and let the market place of culture determine their value.

Dr. Harry L. Serio