The Yuk Factor

This is going to seem like a ramble… but… I’m idle at the moment and idle fingers must tap keys in order for me to stay awake at my desk. I might as well think through some one of the things that is running through my weasel-brain today.

My neighbors probably hate me right now.

Last night, like a true multi-tasker, I cranked up a great Philosophy Bites podcast and hopped in my shower. In the latest download Julian Savulescu talks about the ‘Yuk’ Factor. Put more in expanded terms, the Yuk factor is more of the question: should we make decisions based on our base emotional/gut responses to situations/objects/actions.

I rather loved this discussion as it brought me back to the feelings I have when looking (or trying to look) at visual art. Back in graduate school I had the good fortune of taking a theory seminar with Jan Estep. One of our tasks was to respond to the question: what if a person, who has NO knowledge of art, looks at your work – how do they find value in what you’re doing? This person without any base knowledge of art is then, in theory, running purely on their yuk factor.

This question was a tough one for me to answer because my work isn’t concerned with aesthetics/beauty/sublimation. How is it possible to hook someone into looking at your work, when your work doesn’t visually stimulate them? If someone doesn’t have a preconceived notion of what art is, how can you make them consider something art? In the past, I’ve tried to make the argument that aesthetic appeal is not a necessary ingredient for a great piece. If this is possible, then I believe that there is a different mode of experiencing art that can be invoked… perhaps something along the lines of the viewer as researcher?

Speaking as a viewer, I love art that makes me work to uncover or create meaning. That’s always been the hook for me… understanding as a type of conceptual challenge. It’s not so much the gut-response factor that makes me love art. Instead, I find myself drawn to work that forces me to suspend any yuk factor, delve deeper, and resist making a judgment.

Enough of my blathering.

*****

Definitely worth reading today:

Strained Relations, by Rick Poynor

AND

Letter from London: See You Later Contemporary Art Curator, by Ben Street

An Old | Undead Question

I was having dinner last night with two friends and the same question that has followed me through graduate school popped up again to say hello. I thought I’d take a second to stick my tongue out.

The question is age old… if you count the last 30 years as an age…

Does visual art have to be visually compelling?*

With the risk of being rude, here is the answer that I did not give last night as I was downing my gin and tonic:  No. Personally and professionally speaking, I do not feel for a piece of art to be worthy of my attention that it has to be visually compelling. I would go so far to say that I am utterly fascinated and refreshed by visual artists who are able to make aesthetic decisions that lead to work that isn’t visually thrilling.

I’m compelled by images constantly and it is not a pleasant experience.

Visual culture in the West is characterized by a constant and unending stream of images that are… visually compelling. Some people call them advertisements and they are always there, captivating us to buy/feel/do something. It is all really quite numbing and feel like I’m building up an immunity to this type of image-function.

After all, there is something inexplicably gracious about an image that can function in ways other than… aesthetically compelling.

*I’m going to go ahead and assume the unsaid/uncouth/unfashionable connection between saying that something visually compelling is also saying it is formally compelling.