‘I Could Have Done That.’ Why Change The Course Of Art Dialogue?

Hello, hello!

I hope you are having a wonderful day.

What I want to do through this text is to talk about one of the most common thoughts or sayings regarding Art: I Could Have Done That; but not in the sense of trying to create an argument to defend the artistic practice [As there are a lot of works around the matter. Why Your Five Year Old Could Not Have Done That: Modern Art Explained (2012) by Susie Hodge being a fantastic execution of this], instead to talk about how we can change the dialogue’s approach to propitiate a more prolific outcome.

Here is the premise of the situation: You go to an art gallery or a museum, and as you are walking through the rooms and corridors, you stumble upon (and for the sake of all cliches) an upside-down porcelain urinal signed “R.Mutt” and titled Fountain. After further inspection, and thanks to an introductory text on the wall, you learn that this is one of the most important works of art. So you turn your head towards your companion, or you look straight at an inner image of yourself, and the words come out:

I could have done that; anyone could have done it or the most creative of the bunch; my five-year-old could have done that.

Then, the answer of your choice will most likely lead to one of these three possible outcomes:

1. The interpreter who asserts and continues by talking about the “easy-like” technique and the possible out-of-this-world monetary value of the art piece.
2. The interpreter who mystifies the piece, elevating the work by talking about its aesthetically sensible qualities, but only because it is art.
3. And the answer from an artist/art enthusiast, who will try to argue about the context of the artist, the process upon which the art piece was made, and how the combination of different factors enable the unique situation for it to exist. But, at the end of the day, the answer still alienates people from artists and their work. Now, I will always favor explaining how important it is to investigate what encompasses a piece of art. But what happens in this situation, and I will use one of the oldest proverbs on the list, is that — If you give them a fish, they will only eat for a day. but if you teach them how to fish, they will eat for the rest of their lives. — It is in the second part of the proverb where we can start to see a glimpse of the real problem.

These outcomes lack a concept from Jürgen Habermas’ communication theory which I’m very fond of: Communicative action. Habermas (1981) implies that we could use dialogue as a tool, not to engage in a battle of arguments, but reach mutual understanding. Use it to renew cultural knowledge and to find the best outcome for society. Through this sense, we should now ask: How can we modify the course of this conversation and promote a deeper reflection on the matter?

Taking this premise, humor me for a second, and let’s try the following affirmation. What if, after the ‘I could have done that’, we reply yes? — Of course you could have done it! And also that old lady sitting on the bench, or that security guard over there. Even your 5-year-old! (under the right circumstances). And you know what? You-should-try-it! —

The thing is that if you are not an artist or work in the creative industry, most likely, you haven’t done any sort of artistic exercise since high school, or maybe a topic or two in college. The moment we are done with our elemental studies, we stop the artistic endeavor completely. This lack of being active in Art is a symptom of the fact that we don’t quite understand its purpose, and in part, it is because no one ever taught us.

Art is not just for artists. And I’ll write it in caps hoping for it to linger a little bit longer: ART IS NOT JUST FOR ARTISTS. And one can argue that we engage in art as interpreters when exposed to it, but this right here is the problem; to solely think that this is the only role we should take.

There is a reason why art at the end of the day is an assignment throughout our early education (and I need to address the fact that, in most of the schools around the world, it is outdated, full of tropes, and urging for a change). We are not taught how to use and understand art the same way they teach us mathematics. And it is because of this lack of understanding that we leave it behind.

Let me present it more evidently: When we learn math, they teach us how to use numbers as the raw material to process fundamental equations: To add, subtract, multiply and divide; all of it, through examples from our day-to-day. There is nothing remotely near to a fundamental process when it comes to art education, no sign of the concept of prime material, and much less, examples of how we can use art on a daily basis. It lacks formality. A cadence we can pinpoint to the still present belief that art is this free-flowing subject, with no restrains whatsoever. Now more than ever, we need to realize that even freedom is only available for us through a set of rules and norms, and Art is no exception.

A lil bit of Art History: Back in the time of Plato and Socrates, they discussed the relevance of teaching art and music. For them, it was essential for citizens to understand the concepts of harmony and rhythm. And both of these were of utmost importance for people to develop a good soul, who could judge wisely: Good soul, good people, good citizens, prosperous community. An early trace of why art is a subject in education. This right here, is the bright side so far, the fact that we still believe it relevant and continue to teach it, but we are far away from a concise purpose of why we do it. One outside of just saying — It is for people to learn how to express themselves — .

So the next time you stumble upon this situation, or any kind of situation, try to propose another set of words. Change the course of the conversation in order to enable what really matters to come out and possibly ignite a feeling of doubt, of curiosity. I think that this has something to do with art.