Originally Posted by cheesepaws
I can only resolve this discord by assuming he means that ONLY the creator – the artist – can understand his own work. I reject this idea primarily based on person experience and my personal belief that Art MUST serve a social function to be named Art. This social function can be as basic as “to be seen” or as grand expounding on some specific societal/political/psychological/etc..
All good rationale Cheese except I'm curious about this. I think in a sense you make Matt's argument for him here. The social or "cultural" influences in any given work are then proportionally related to its acceleration toward artifact and away from art if the above is true. No one who hasn't read the bible and knows the story of David and Goliath would be able to relate to the narrative aspects of Michelangelo's David, yet they would still be able to appreciate the craft of his work and perhaps still view it as great art and not artifact. Without social function or an appreciation for social function then the bonifide abstractionist begins with artifact and with this notion (one based on logical conclusion following your own reasoning) I disagree. Still, I do tend to think that art must serve rather some myth in order to be called art, it's just that we're accelerating further and further away from old myths as a society and embracing new ones, less universal and more compartmentalized based upon clique.. Al Gorlioni and global warming come to mind and swaths of socially functioning polar bears et al.. (not to put down anyone's polar bears, I've made one myself..).