When in Manchester for the Halima Cassell Exhibition I went to the shop and bought ‘Art as Therapy’. I suppose it’s a typical Gallery book, and I bought it for what I suspect are typical Gallery reasons – to improve my knowledge of the ‘art world’ and because of the rave reviews on the cover and the recommendation of the girl on the till. The authors, Alain de Botton and John Armstrong (2013) discuss the function of ‘Art’. Their main examples are two dimensional artwork seen in a gallery or possibly purchased for the home, together with some architecture, sculpture, ceramics and furniture. They suggest that art has 7 main functions, some of which I had not considered before:
Ultimately their aim in this book is to help their readers (and society in general) live richer more fulfilled and happier lives in “a world where works of art have become a little less necessary”(p228). Can art really do this? What do I think? The role for art, in increasing our appreciation of the world around us and looking afresh, is the one I had encountered before. It will probably be most familiar to many people - perhaps along with beauty, marking social status and financial investment, aspects of which are covered only obliquely. The authors argue that art can go further than simply enabling us look “ with kinder and more alert eyes” (p55) to “recognise the worth of a modest moment” (p56) It invites us to notice what we have ignored and recalibrate what is important to us. The authors even claim(p56): "It lies in the power of art to honour the elusive value of ordinary life. It can teach us to be more just towards ourselves as we endeavour to make the best of our circumstances : a job we do not always love, the imperfections of middle age, our frustrated ambitions and our attempts to stay loyal to irritable but loved spouses. Art can do the opposite of glamourizing the unobtainable; it can reawaken us to the genuine merit of life as we are forced to lead it". Preserving or retrieving memory of a mood, experience or a person and providing a stimulus to reflection, is an important area. I think can be too easily confused with the idea of ‘providing a record’, now often done better in photography or video recording. There is of course controversy about whether photography is ‘art’. This was discussed (and left open) in Grayson Perry’s Reith lecture, recently re-broadcast. Sorrow, loss or grief, are often poorly articulated and accompanied by feelings of intense loneliness despite being universally experienced. De Botton and Armstrong suggest that art works can help us connect and feel that we are understood, sharing this with others. In ‘Growth’ they state (p44): "Engagement with art is useful because it presents us with powerful examples of the kind of alien material that provokes defensive boredom and fear and allows us time and privacy to learn to deal ….with it. …Its when we find a point of connection with the foreign that we are able to grow…..Maturity is the possession of coping skills: we can take in our stride the things that previously knocked us off our course(p52)" Museum curators are criticised for assuming people are already interested and simply need to have a few details explained to them, rather than helping make connections with ‘difficult’ pieces.(p46) Self understanding relates to ‘looking afresh’. The authors say (p39) “From time to time we encounter works of art that seem to catch on to something we have felt but never completely recognised clearly before”, “art objects…are the media we come to know ourselves” and that “art builds up self knowledge and is an excellent way of communicating the resulting fruit to other people”(p40). We say who we are by the kind of things we have. This is “more than just a desire for our guests to think we have good taste and enough money to do something about it”(p43). But is it??? ‘Rebalancing’ is a role explored in depth and is central to the book’s argument. The authors say that everyone has different psychological needs and that “we hunger for artworks that will compensate for our inner fragilities and help us return to a viable mean” (p32). Moreover(p38) “Art can save us time -and our lives – through opportune and visceral reminders of balance and goodness that we should never presume we know enough about already”. If this is about morality, the authors agree. They suggest (p34) that “ a lot of the best art….has been concerned with an explicitly moralistic mission….we can derive enormous benefit from works of art that encourage us to be the best versions of ourselves”. I found the section on hope the most interesting. It relates to a following section which considers what is ‘good’ art. De Botton and Armstrong discuss the argument that ‘pretty’ (and popular) pictures may encourage sentimentality, superficiality and lack of engagement with ‘real’ life and its problems. Art which is “cheerful pleasant and pretty…can be deeply troubling to people of taste and intelligence” (p12) and “leave us insufficiently critical and alert to the injustices surrounding us”(p13). ‘Idealized’ can be a term of abuse. They add “It is hardly surprising then if being ‘realistic’- the antidote to idealization – is judged a cornerstone of maturity”(p20). In contrast they suggest that when considering such ‘cheerful’ art: "these worries are generally misplaced. Far from taking a too rosy and sentimental view, most of the time we suffer from excessive gloom….optimism is important …..because many outcomes are determined by how much of it we bring to the task. This flies in the face of the elite view that talent is the primary requirement for a good life, but in many cases the difference between success and failure is determined by nothing more than our sense of what is possible and the energy we can muster to convince others of our due. We might be doomed… by an absence of hope…it is because the troubles of the world are so continually brought to our attention that we need tools that can preserve our hopeful dispositions.(p13)…Strategic examination of what is good can perform the critical function of distilling and concentrating the hope we need to chart a path through the difficulties of life." These arguments are on the same theme as the section on ‘rebalancing’. For a person who through constitution or circumstance takes a gloomy view of life or is oppressed by difficulties, then viewing art objects which are uplifting helps to counterbalance that negativity. The authors do not carry this argument to its conclusion. They should tell the critics of those who choose ‘pretty’ images to back off. The authors argue that art can help with mental well being and that this in turn affects physical health. In comparison to other factors, art must surely have a marginal role in health if basic needs are not met. The Health Foundation Creating Healthy Lives report of 2019 says: "This report argues for both investment in people’s health over the longer term and new mechanisms to embed a whole-government approach to creating good health. Action needs to be taken across the factors that have the strongest influence on people’s health, such as transport, education, social security, childrens’ services, housing and work." Perhaps if de Botton and Armstrong are serious about using art to influence population health they should place images on the buses or in the London underground. They may also be aware of Maslows hierarchy of needs. This generally accepted concept highlights the importance of the basic physiological needs for food, water and health. By contrast, art fits at the top in self actualization, or as this book argues, potentially contributing to love/belonging.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am indulging my passion for ceramics by undertaking studies for an MA at UCLAN Archives
August 2021
|