Brady DeHoust -- Dewey, Art, and Communication

“In the end, works of art are the only media of complete and unhindered communication between man and man that can occur in a world of gulfs and walls that limit community experience.” So claimed John Dewey, in his 1934 work Art as Experience. This is a quote which continues the question which has been ongoing throughout my contribution to this blog, namely, broadly speaking, “what is the relationship between art and communication/symbol/rhetoric?” Admittedly, I am taking this quote without any additional context, so my interpretation is limited.

I assume that Dewey is referring to fine art (painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry, music, dance, drama) as opposed to a looser definition which might include all craft, technology, and verbal communication. That said, this seems like a pretty romantic view of things. Verbal communication, that is, text and speech, is already fraught with difficulty stemming from the inherent necessity of interpretation and human finitude. While art artifacts may intuitively offer something of a more authentic expression of the artist’s mind than prose, does it offer a means of communicating which transcends the natural boundaries of interpretation and finitude?

In light of the conversation we had last class, I think not. I raise the question of how one might discern the deeper or transcendent meaning of many works of art. Some are more obvious, like The Fighting Temeraire, which allows for some relatively accessible interpretive work. However, the works of such artists as Kandinsky and Pollock are not so accessible, and my question was how to discern the meaning, how to even begin accurately interpreting such works (assuming, of course, something beyond mere interpretive relativism). Dr. Redick indicated that context is of eminent importance when interpreting works of art, particularly more abstract ones. This makes perfect sense. To know the culture in which an artist or artifact is/was embedded, its history, anything to which it was directly responding, and other such influences are obviously key in gaining a viable or accurate interpretation.

This is hardly different from textual interpretation of anything from mass communication to interpersonal and everywhere in between. Context is critical for proper interpretation. Given that art really does not afford for astute interpretation in deficit of context, it would not appear to escape or transcend the difficulties of other forms of communication. It may be strong in some (necessary) areas, like authenticity, creativity, subjectivity, etc. etc., however, one could argue that it is balanced out by weaknesses in other areas, like clarity and intuitivity. [No, “intuitivity” is not a word, but it should be. It just feels right. Let me have this.]

I might say that art is a necessary medium for complete and unhindered communication between humans (or at least the closest thing achievable). However, in light of the eminent need for context for astute and apt interpretation, I do not think that art transcends the difficulties of communication.