Appreciating artwork isn’t just an act

‘ ‘ ‘ If you had looked to the skies last week, you might have seen a fancy beacon projected… ‘ ‘ ‘ If you had looked to the skies last week, you might have seen a fancy beacon projected from Downtown Pittsburgh summoning all the culturally interested citizens, wide-eyed students and other folks easily lured by the promise of free alcohol. This is not referring to a secret rave in the bowels of Pittsburgh, and the whole beacon-in-the-sky image is entirely metaphorical. I am referring to the monthly gallery crawl of the ‘Burgh’s Cultural District, which took place last Friday from 5:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. ‘ ‘ ‘ I have been to these Dionysian affairs in the past and have generally left with a profound sense of disquiet. Now you may think that this is leading into a rant on relevant art that slams the offerings of Pittsburgh’s creative community as self-satisfied and contrived. However, I am a firm believer that even the most outlandish and puffed-up offerings ‘mdash; think Julianne Moore in ‘The Big Lebowski’ ‘mdash; are incredibly important and that populist art is every bit as exclusive and inflated as haute culture. ‘ ‘ ‘ What unsettles me most about gallery crawls, museums, exhibitions and dentists’ offices is the attitude of patrons toward your response to art. There seems to be a contract that each patron signs that binds him to spend as much time inspecting other patrons as the art itself. Overly loud sighs, raised eyebrows, a touch on a friend’s arm and a snicker: These markers indicate that you are looking at art wrong. ‘ ‘ ‘ How can someone look at art wrong? Well, apparently it’s very simple. If not every piece strikes you into existential paralysis with Stendhal Syndrome, then you are doing something wrong. To wit, going to an art exhibition feels a lot like when you were in grade school and you couldn’t cross your eyes hard enough to see the hidden picture in the pattern. Everyone else is blown away as if the silhouette of a dolphin is tapping some fantastic truth, while you just wander away in confusion. ‘ ‘ ‘ It would be fantastic if this confrontation with art patrons were just a minor annoyance. However, it sadly marks a much more serious cultural malady. When being a spectator becomes a spectator sport, outward displays are confused with real engagement. This encourages not only fake performances of artistic involvement ‘mdash; the breathless ‘mmm’ of the turtlenecked ranks, the single tear of the art activist ‘mdash; but also defeats productive communication about art. An ethic in which art viewers must respond physically and emotionally to art denies distance, which is often necessary for art to be productive. We generally cannot separate ourselves enough from the things that hit us hardest to discuss them fruitfully. ‘ ‘ ‘ Now, before my inbox is flooded with e-mails, let me agree with you that there is plenty of discussion in a gallery or at a crawl. How can I possibly argue that modern art culture hurts dialogue? I urge you to listen more closely. The vocabulary at these events, more often than not, will be made up of words like ‘powerful,’ ‘raw’ or ‘human.’ This way of talking about art, more specifically, is talking about how art makes one feel. ‘ ‘ ‘ Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing particularly culturally important about how a piece of art makes you feel. The liberalism that convinces people that their personal reactions are profound is a dangerous philosophy that stops productive dialogue in its tracks. I’m not arguing against introspection. I’m arguing against being content with subjectivity. It’s very nice that everyone has unique emotions and reactions. However, if we don’t address the world in objective terms, we can’t have those nice things we all like, such as society or communication. Furthermore, we can’t move forward or innovate if it’s all caught up in individuals’ unique feelings. ‘ ‘ ‘ Imagine if we went around talking about the world exclusively in terms of our feelings: ‘Judge, is the defendant guilty?’ ‘Well, the case makes me feel happy. No, he isn’t.’ Or, ‘Senator, should the bill be passed?’ ‘That law makes me feel sad. I don’t like it.’ ‘ ‘ ‘ This is, of course, absurd. We have to go beyond feelings and allow objectivity so society can exist at all. We need to assume that some things can be’ objective, or else we cannot operate with others. Objectivity is sort of like a less creepy Facebook: It keeps people from being isolated. ‘ ‘ ‘ Next time you go to an art event, remember this lesson. It’s more important how you act on the art than how it acts on you. Go past your feelings and talk about how the art works in culture. If you feel like just breezing through a gallery, then you are neither wrong nor bad at analyzing culture. You have just learned not to milk art into some stimulant. Also, our gallery crawl itself is top-notch. Check it out. Act on Erik at ech15@pitt.edu.