Art not appsI’m no longer seeking explanations for inscrutable emotions, wondering: ‘Why am I feeling this way?’ I’m now exploring somewhere new, asking: ‘What is this space and how does it work?’
This, I think, is a good way to engage with art.
Lately, there’s been an uptick in using art, especially music, to achieve specific outcomes. I do this myself. My concentration playlist is a big part of getting me to do things I don’t actually want to do. Mood playlists on Spotify are one of things that draw users there (The company would prefer it if users were interested in something cheaper like podcasts or at least tracks by artists who agree to take less pay.)
There’s also comfort videos, TV, and movies. And of course, the empowerment versions of these things, which, if you’re lucky, shows people like yourself being successful, unsuccessful, or what have you.
I think that art as a tool is good. It’s better to have it than not. But to experience art that way for an increasing share of your time with art cheats you of its unique ability to take you some undefined place you didn’t know existed, rather than exactly where you told it to take you.
Liam Gillick remarks to his fellow conceptual artists John Baldessari and Lawrence Weiner, and the curator Beatrix Ruf:People either functionalise the work, instrumentalise it, or use it as a metaphorical structure. The truth is that the work is none of these things alone. The object is neither just functional nor is it exactly a metaphor of the idea of a place for something to happen. It has potential, it is in a constant state of ‘becoming’.