Art, like money, is what we think it is. That’s why money is, apparently, the only measure of art. If it’s free, it’s not art. Or so it seems.
Painters were once prized as picture makers. Cameras have devalued the craft of making pictures by hand. That has shifted the focus to making pictures worth looking at. Composition now matters in ways it did not matter before. Hence abstract art, which is pure composition. Impressionism, which refuses to provide the optical illusion of reality. Expressionism, which claims to show emotions and meanings directly. Pop art, which detaches the image from its context. And so on.
Even photographers now attempt to do something other than make a naïve representation of reality. The subjects are staged, disparate objects are brought together in front of the camera, the photographer moves around to get the best angle of view, digital technologies enable manipulation well beyond the capabilities of the darkroom.
Old and new image-making technologies are attempts at exploring and redefining picture-making in order to make images worth looking at.
All the while, the ease of making images has discouraged looking. Too many images – very few worth a 2nd look – how do we know that worth? By their nagging presence in memory? By the content? By the palette? The composition?
Any or all of these will make an image stick. The unpredictable part is individual preference or taste. And that perhaps even more elusive entity, meaning. All images signify, but what they signify depends on how the viewer decodes what they see. That includes the image maker, whose perception of meaning is no better or more valid than any other. The image maker’s intention cannot overcome the inherent ambiguities in the image. This inability to determine the significance of the work is common to all forms and modes of expression. Including this one, which is certain to be misunderstood, to be interpreted in ways I do not intend and cannot prevent. This lack of control explains the futility of censorship.