Manifesto
All year I have been trying to write a piece about my view of art and how it should be talked about or experienced. I did a bunch of pre work on the piece in semester 1, but stalled out on actually writing it for whatever reason.
In my meeting with Chris in early quarter 4, while we were discussing what I should have finished by the end of the year, he thought that writing a manifesto of some sort could be a good writing piece to round out my work. Originally the manifesto was going to be about King Lear, but I didn’t focus as much on King Lear as I was planning to in quarter 4.
So, when a burst of inspiration struck in the last weeks of the year I harnessed it into energy that I put into writing my Manifesto. It stands as an exploration of what my artistic beliefs are today (and I’m sure they will change and I will write many more Manifestos to reflect that).
I was particularly proud of the process that the piece went through to make it some of my best work. While the first draft was very inspired, the second, third and fourth drafts were much more about putting good work into it. The process of revision was pretty straight forward. The first and third drafts were edited by me, the second was edited by me and Chris, and the 4th was firmly edited by Chris. I haven’t had a ton of experience with good revision processes in the past few years, but this one was very gratifying, and I hope to do many more revisions of my work in the future.
All year I have been trying to write a piece about my view of art and how it should be talked about or experienced. I did a bunch of pre work on the piece in semester 1, but stalled out on actually writing it for whatever reason.
In my meeting with Chris in early quarter 4, while we were discussing what I should have finished by the end of the year, he thought that writing a manifesto of some sort could be a good writing piece to round out my work. Originally the manifesto was going to be about King Lear, but I didn’t focus as much on King Lear as I was planning to in quarter 4.
So, when a burst of inspiration struck in the last weeks of the year I harnessed it into energy that I put into writing my Manifesto. It stands as an exploration of what my artistic beliefs are today (and I’m sure they will change and I will write many more Manifestos to reflect that).
I was particularly proud of the process that the piece went through to make it some of my best work. While the first draft was very inspired, the second, third and fourth drafts were much more about putting good work into it. The process of revision was pretty straight forward. The first and third drafts were edited by me, the second was edited by me and Chris, and the 4th was firmly edited by Chris. I haven’t had a ton of experience with good revision processes in the past few years, but this one was very gratifying, and I hope to do many more revisions of my work in the future.
Manifesto 6.17
On Art as Experience,
Towards Cultivating an Engaged Audience
By Noah Witke
Imagine a space. In it, an artwork and a person. This is the Viewer and a Piece. The Artist is absent.
What will the Viewer† take away from this experience? They cannot take the Piece with them‡. The most that they may take is the memory¶ of their experience.
Reasons the Viewer will remember¶ the Piece:
Memorable art is the only art that survives, and art that the Viewer fully experiences is the only art that is remembered.
If the Piece is good the viewer may share their experience of it, from memory, describing it to those who they think will find it interesting. The Piece survives this way, but becomes less true to the vision of the Artist†. When transmitted through description the Piece belongs more to the Viewer than it did before; it is diluted by their memory and unique experience of the piece. And yet this is no less valuable than the original, simply the ownership has changed.
The Artist may be offended by this transferal of ownership.
My work is mine, and mine alone §.
The Piece is the child of the Artist. As a parent shapes a child, the Artist shapes the Piece. As a child comes of age and moves away so does the Piece. Because of this the Artist must understand the distinction between their experience of the Piece and that of the Viewer’s . When the Artist looks at the Piece, they see the work, and thought, and time, that they spent creating it. They see more than the sum of its parts, they see themselves. In opposition to this the Viewer sees the Piece as all of its parts producing a whole, ignorant to the mind of the artist║.
The Artist has a different experience of the Piece, they are invested in it, and the Viewer is not. Thus it is the Artist’s job to create work that stimulates the Viewer's imagination, and inspires them to discover meaning in the world around them.
†
On the terms used:
The Artist The Viewer The Piece
These terms denote a specific and theoretical situation in which these three players are the only variables within the space. They create a utopic transaction between Artist, Piece, and Viewer, free of human vices such as greed, and desire to be known. It also removes the aspect of curation that appears in the natural world, and instead sets the Piece of a platform that is exactly equal to that of all other Pieces.
The situation goes as thus:
The Artist creates the Piece intentionally without interaction with the future audience.
The Piece is finished, and is set (somewhat in a void; imagine an empty white room). The Artist is no longer present. (In some cases the artist will still be present, such as in live performance, but the Artist should not be interacting with the viewer in any form beyond the parameters of the Piece.)
The Viewer enters the room and sees the Piece. They carry with them everything that has informed and shaped their life thus far, which will, in turn inform their experience and reaction to the Piece. They take in everything that the Artist has placed within the Piece, and briefly reflect on it, then move on to the next room (and the next Piece).
‡
This is only true in most cases. Pieces that involve the Viewer physically taking something away from it are exempt from this thought.
¶
Memory is key to to the long term experience of art, and so are the degrees thereof. The Viewer may be so changed by the Piece that from the point of interaction on their experience causes a direct and conscious change on their state of being (this is the ideal for the Piece), but most pieces are not this affecting. The viewer will often just file the Piece away, and only return to it when this memory is directly stimulated.
*
Whether or not the Viewer gives that something is irrelevant. A refusal to interact with the Piece is just as telling and memorable as if the Viewer does participate, and engage with the work.
§
The Artist may embrace this opinion so strongly that they refuse to share the Piece with others, this creates a situation in which the Artist is also the Viewer, both reflecting on and creating the Piece.
║
That is not to say that the Viewer does not look for themselves within the Piece, but unlike the Artist, they must look instead of seeing .
On top of this, the Viewer brings their own life experience into the space with them, which may shape the way that they experience the Piece, and through this it will of course differ from the experience of the Artist.
On Art as Experience,
Towards Cultivating an Engaged Audience
By Noah Witke
Imagine a space. In it, an artwork and a person. This is the Viewer and a Piece. The Artist is absent.
What will the Viewer† take away from this experience? They cannot take the Piece with them‡. The most that they may take is the memory¶ of their experience.
Reasons the Viewer will remember¶ the Piece:
- If the Piece makes the Viewer feel something.
- If the Piece has a striking or powerful image.
- If the Piece requests something of the Viewer*.
Memorable art is the only art that survives, and art that the Viewer fully experiences is the only art that is remembered.
If the Piece is good the viewer may share their experience of it, from memory, describing it to those who they think will find it interesting. The Piece survives this way, but becomes less true to the vision of the Artist†. When transmitted through description the Piece belongs more to the Viewer than it did before; it is diluted by their memory and unique experience of the piece. And yet this is no less valuable than the original, simply the ownership has changed.
The Artist may be offended by this transferal of ownership.
My work is mine, and mine alone §.
The Piece is the child of the Artist. As a parent shapes a child, the Artist shapes the Piece. As a child comes of age and moves away so does the Piece. Because of this the Artist must understand the distinction between their experience of the Piece and that of the Viewer’s . When the Artist looks at the Piece, they see the work, and thought, and time, that they spent creating it. They see more than the sum of its parts, they see themselves. In opposition to this the Viewer sees the Piece as all of its parts producing a whole, ignorant to the mind of the artist║.
The Artist has a different experience of the Piece, they are invested in it, and the Viewer is not. Thus it is the Artist’s job to create work that stimulates the Viewer's imagination, and inspires them to discover meaning in the world around them.
†
On the terms used:
The Artist The Viewer The Piece
These terms denote a specific and theoretical situation in which these three players are the only variables within the space. They create a utopic transaction between Artist, Piece, and Viewer, free of human vices such as greed, and desire to be known. It also removes the aspect of curation that appears in the natural world, and instead sets the Piece of a platform that is exactly equal to that of all other Pieces.
The situation goes as thus:
The Artist creates the Piece intentionally without interaction with the future audience.
The Piece is finished, and is set (somewhat in a void; imagine an empty white room). The Artist is no longer present. (In some cases the artist will still be present, such as in live performance, but the Artist should not be interacting with the viewer in any form beyond the parameters of the Piece.)
The Viewer enters the room and sees the Piece. They carry with them everything that has informed and shaped their life thus far, which will, in turn inform their experience and reaction to the Piece. They take in everything that the Artist has placed within the Piece, and briefly reflect on it, then move on to the next room (and the next Piece).
‡
This is only true in most cases. Pieces that involve the Viewer physically taking something away from it are exempt from this thought.
¶
Memory is key to to the long term experience of art, and so are the degrees thereof. The Viewer may be so changed by the Piece that from the point of interaction on their experience causes a direct and conscious change on their state of being (this is the ideal for the Piece), but most pieces are not this affecting. The viewer will often just file the Piece away, and only return to it when this memory is directly stimulated.
*
Whether or not the Viewer gives that something is irrelevant. A refusal to interact with the Piece is just as telling and memorable as if the Viewer does participate, and engage with the work.
§
The Artist may embrace this opinion so strongly that they refuse to share the Piece with others, this creates a situation in which the Artist is also the Viewer, both reflecting on and creating the Piece.
║
That is not to say that the Viewer does not look for themselves within the Piece, but unlike the Artist, they must look instead of seeing .
On top of this, the Viewer brings their own life experience into the space with them, which may shape the way that they experience the Piece, and through this it will of course differ from the experience of the Artist.