Art Theory vs. Creative Freedom: Why Over-Theorizing Hurts Art

Introduction: The Problem with Art Theory

The idea of art theory and meaning has been debated for centuries. Art critics seem to instill heavy meaning into every artwork, but is that truly the artist's intention? Did artists mean for viewers to contemplate their works as they would a work of literature, or did they create their art for enjoyment rather than theory? Every person has his or her own idea about art and art theory. To fully enjoy a work of art, the viewer should experience it on its own terms, rather than attempting to fill it with vague or perhaps misplaced meaning, symbolism, and theory.

For centuries, humans have created art, and other humans have attempted to make sense of that art by critiquing it and adding meaning, symbolism, and theory to the works. One art critic writes, "Does art bear a message in the way language does? What must we know to clarify an artwork's meaning: external facts about artists' lives, or internal facts about how their works were made? Can't we just look at an artwork for enjoyment?" (Freeland, 2003, p. 100). This question points directly to the problem with theory and meaning when it comes to art. Is theory really necessary, or can art be enjoyed simply for what it is — beautiful and inspiring works that please the eyes and the senses?

Cognitive and Expression Theories of Art

There are two main theories of art used throughout the art world: the cognitive theory and the expression theory. The expression theory holds that art communicates feelings and emotions to the viewer, and that it is the artist's job to convey these meanings (Freeland, 2003, p. 104). The cognitive theory holds that art plays a role in our lives by imparting knowledge to the viewer (Freeland, 2003, p. 112). These two theories illustrate how rigid the theoretical study of art can be, and how it can never be the same for two people — or even two critics.

In fact, some critics are now arguing that art theory is "dead," at least in part because it has worn out and is no longer viable in today's art world (Rosenstein, 2002). Others comment on how theories change over time and become archaic and outmoded when artists follow them too closely or rigidly (Hertel, 2003). Thus, theories can bind both the artist and the viewer, and for many, art theory needs to recede so that truly expressive and creative art can flourish.

Subjectivity and the Role of the Viewer

Interpretation and theory also depend, at least partly, on the viewer. For example, a male viewer might think nothing of a painting of a nude, while a female viewer might interpret it quite differently. As Freeland explains, "Sometimes critics advance interpretations that artists themselves reject. Feminist critics, for example, think that nudes done by great artists like Renoir, Picasso, and de Kooning reflect ways men have often seen women as their muses and/or sexual property" (Freeland, 2003, p. 101). Thus, the theory behind a work can vary dramatically from person to person, and that means each viewer may react differently to the same piece of art.

Theory is wholly subjective, and this subjectivity is another reason that theory can mislead both the artist and the viewer. Because no single interpretation can be universally correct, assigning rigid theoretical meaning to a work of art risks distorting rather than illuminating it.

Artists Who Rejected Rigid Theory

An excellent example of an artist who worked without imposed theory is Michelangelo, who was legendary for his belief that each piece of marble or other medium contained the finished work within it. His job was simply to "liberate" the artwork inside. As one art historian writes, "Art forms, or the concetto, exist independently of the artist, and are implanted in matter by nature. The artist's function was to draw these forms out of the material" (Vess, 2008). This idea — that the art is waiting inside the medium — entirely bypasses questions of meaning and interpretation. Michelangelo relied on his manipulation of the stone to uncover the artwork, with no external theory involved.

Michelangelo is not the only artist unconcerned with theory, but he is among the most famous. Other artists, such as Picasso, illustrate how methods can change over time, leading to very different approaches. Picasso went through several distinct "periods," including his well-known "blue period," during which he painted primarily in shades of blue. Had he chosen to confine himself to a single theory, his artwork would not have changed and grown as it did throughout his lifetime, and that rigidity might have diminished both his success and his lasting influence. Creativity is paramount in the art world, and stifling it in any form leads to disappointing art and unsuccessful artists.

This stifling of creativity also relates directly to the practical realities of making art. Most artworks take more than a few hours to create; many require weeks, months, or even years. Certainly, the artist does not feel the same thing each time he or she returns to a piece, and a single theory cannot remain constant across that span of time. As Freeland notes, "When music or art expresses something, perhaps this has more to do with how it is arranged than with what the artist was feeling on a given day. The expressiveness is in the work, not the artist" (Freeland, 2003, p. 105). Thus, even when an artist subscribes to a particular theory or idea, that theory can shift during the creative process, and adhering rigidly to it is nearly impossible — and counterproductive.

Conclusion: Art for Art's Sake

It is fine to have a theory when creating or admiring art, but that theory challenges creativity and the enjoyment of the piece. If a viewer or an artist is so busy attempting to figure out the theory of a piece that it gets in the way of the enjoyment or creativity of that piece, then theory has gone too far. It can guide the artist, but it should never overpower the artwork or the process of creating it. To enjoy art simply for art's sake is the highest compliment one can pay an artist, and excessive theory can only get in the way of that enjoyment.

References

Freeland, C. (2003). Art Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.

Hertel, C. (2003). Ivan Gaskell: Vermeer's Wager Speculations on Art History, Theory and Art Museums. The Art Bulletin, 85(3), 611+.

Irvine, M. (2008). Art theory concepts. Georgetown University.

Murray, D. C., & Murray, S. (2006). Uneasy bedfellows: Canonical art theory and the politics of identity. Art Journal, 65(1), 22+.

Panero, J. (2005). Criticism after art. New Criterion, 24, 16+.

Rosenstein, L. (2002). The end of art theory. Humanitas, 15(1), 32+.

Vess, D. (2008). The influence of Neoplatonism on Michelangelo. Georgia College & State University.

Williams, R. (2004). Art Theory: An Historical Introduction. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts.