On the relationship between the producer and consumer of art

A central question in the world of art is whether alignment between the artist’s intention and the viewer’s interpretation is necessary to be considered as art.

Exploring this question is well served by exploring some examples:

Example 1: The Mona Lisa
It should not be necessary to debate whether or not the Mona Lisa can be considered as fine art.
Even though there are hundreds of interpretations of the piece, it’s important to note that Leonardo da Vinci did not provide any information about his intention with the painting.
As a result, our knowledge of the piece depends largely on the interpretation of the piece itself.

One thing we do know is that Leonardo never delivered the piece to a patron, opening up the initial mystery about the identity of the sitter
Of course, the work is inherently a technical masterpiece for the time, but that does not explain why this particular painting has come to be regarded as probably the most famous artwork in the world.

So, in the case of the Mona Lisa, millions of viewers around the world have experienced the piece as art, without any knowledge of the intention of the artist

Example 1 should then immediately put to bed the notion that a piece can only be considered as art when a “message” was assembled by the artist and subsequently received and interpreted by the consumer.

But let’s explore the polar opposite

Example 2: The tear on the clown’s face
As an artist, if you intended to convey the message that externally happy people often hide emotional trauma under the covers, then there’s a well established trope: The tear on the clown’s cheek
So let’s assume you were to compose a technically perfect photo of a clown, with an obvious tear on their left cheek.
We can be sure that all viewers would interpret the work “correctly”.
Would this photo be considered fine art?

The answer is an emphatic “No”.

But this isn’t merely because of an overused trope. The reason is that it cuts down on the purpose of art:

1. Art is NOT a medium of communication between the producer and the consumer. It can be, but this is not a necessary condition for art

2. There must be an emotional experience between the consumer and the artwork. This is an essential condition for art

3. The relationship is NOT between the artist and the viewer. It’s between the ARTWORK and the viewer

So to summarise: Even if the artist had a totally different intention with the piece, or even if we have no idea about what the artist’s intention was, as long as the viewers experience an emotional relationship with the artwork itself, it is art.