The Hidden Aspect in Art

Rachid Bekkaj (Photographer)

Elaine Alibrandi (Artist painter)

Since its beginnings, art has constantly encouraged reflection and prompted sociologists and other scientists to ask, why are we so interested in art?

This question, which aims at the scientific analysis of art, may seem cold and clinical, but there is a complex relationship between science and art. Art history has demonstrated that one needs the other. Both science and art rely on observation and exploration. Moreover, almost all research articles use images to illustrate researchers' concepts and findings. When an artist creates, they position themselves as a researcher in a laboratory. The only difference is that the artist is immersed in a complex experience, their objective being to depict a shared idea or emotion, or, in Max Weber's terms, an "ideal type." For Weber, the aim was to identify the main features that help in thinking about the subject. Ultimately, both art and science aspire to deeply understand an object or idea, to examine it, and experiment with it. From this perspective, experimentation forms the foundation of everything in both of these domains.

Based on this observation, we start with the following questions: Why do certain works of art fascinate us?

Does this interest lead us to deepen our knowledge of the artist and their relationship to their work?

Even so, can the interpretation of a work of art be reduced to a simple verbal explanation?

Art and the Artist

Philosophers, artists, intellectuals, critics, and many others have pondered this question. A work of art is generally defined as an object or creation possessing aesthetic or conceptual value. It is usually produced by an artist or a group of artists.

The term "being an artist" can be understood from an objective perspective, both historical and sociological. It is evident that the status of the artist has a history, marked by a succession of important figures, none of whom have been completely eliminated or superseded by those who followed them. However, the status of artist remains intrinsically linked to a certain value. To say that a person is an artist is to grant public recognition to something whose definition has changed over the centuries and which is never clearly defined

From this perspective, the discussion of genius emerges, which developed in Immanuel Kant's thesis when he placed the knowledgeable person in contrast to the artist, and talent in contrast to reason, and what he said can be understood from that Andy Warhol believed, any work produced by an artist is, by extension, art, once it is exhibited to the public, the work and its quality are subject to the interpretation of the viewers. Or, according to Danielle Boutet, "anything that seems to us to be full of meaning can be an aesthetic experience."

This led the Italian critic Luigi Pareyson to believe that art is a space for a sensitive dialogue between the will of the artist and the will of the work.

Art and the Role of the Public

When we talk about art, the position of the spectator always remains at the heart of the discussion. Indeed, the question is closely associated with the richness of meanings, similar to the image of the word itself, which conceals several possible interpretations thanks to its multiple senses.

The meaning of the term spectator differs according to the disciplines that use it: A group of individuals belonging to the human species, affected by the dissemination of images, possibly possessing shared characteristics (the public, the audiences), an entity shaped by and within the image or by the theorist and supposed to illustrate or account for the (psychological, cognitive) interactions of the spectator with the film (archi-spectator), an infinite diversity of human beings endowed with unpredictable reactions, yet united by this characteristic: The attraction to the image

This definition presents two perspectives: the first views the spectator as a concrete reality, while the second considers them as a strictly theoretical construct for purely scientific purposes. However, what interests us in this discussion is the spectator as an element of the situation.

It is based on this idea that the public's interpretation is important, the public's reaction plays a truly decisive role in an artist's career. Similarly, the viewer can benefit from analyzing their own perceptions to better understand the work. Otherwise, we certainly wouldn't pay much attention to art, which might also prompt the artist to reflect on the reasons for exhibiting their work. However, this statement raises the question of quality. What criteria allow us to define a work of art as being of poor or good quality?

In fact, the complexity of understanding a work of art often stems from the need to decipher the artist's perspective, given that they are the creator and initial interpreter of their own vision.

But why would an artist choose to exhibit a work knowing it is unlikely to sell? If the artist's intention is to provoke thought in viewers—that is, to communicate a message with which the viewer may or may not agree—then this work often falls under the category of engaged or political art. From this perspective, the neutrality of a discerning viewer becomes essential.

For the artist, the meaning of a work of art is often clear; therefore, they assume that the viewer can grasp it visually. While this may be the case, this understanding can vary depending on the level of perception. Ideally, the observer should pay close attention to the work and dedicate time to reflecting on what they perceive. The appreciation and understanding of works of art are complex processes that integrate both the individual interpretation of the viewer and the cultural context in which the work is perceived. Understanding these processes helps us enrich our artistic experience while broadening our comprehension.

This is certainly not someone who takes a superficial look before looking away, but rather someone who is open and curious. This could be an art teacher, a gallery owner, or someone with no formal artistic training. Expertise in art is not essential; it is enough to be receptive and observant. These qualities allow for a deeper understanding and appreciation of the work. The viewer may be drawn to a work of art because of its colors, its composition, or even because it evokes a pleasant memory or association. The public may therefore have different interpretations from those of the artist, but this matters little, as it is their own personal perception. Thus, for artists, the work is a gift they offer to themselves and to the viewers.

The Complexity of Art

Many artists find explaining their art difficult because it is a visual medium. For some, the act of creating is an almost unconscious process, as natural as breathing. This does not mean, however, that creating is easy. The need to create may always be present in an artist, but the act of creating can be overwhelming, transcendent, frustrating, or even painful.

When discussing the relationship between the artist and their creation, the issue must be placed within a specific context. For an artist, life itself is an artistic creation; therefore, all their works can be considered "self-portraits." An artist's creation can illustrate their intelligence, humor, psychology, and emotions, and, of course, their state of mind at the time of creating the work. For viewers, individual preferences will always play a role in the appreciation of a work of art.

We often wonder about the relationship between art and concepts such as love, freedom, respect, human interaction, and empathy. In reality, upon closer examination, we find that these relationships do not exist in a strict sense, as illustrated by the fact that Hitler himself painted. However, freedom, as a value, is an exception. How does the artist define freedom?

This is an extremely complex question. What art historian could ignore the creation of the "Art and Freedom Group"? This Egyptian artistic and political movement was active from 1938 to 1948, a period that largely coincided with World War II. Their manifesto says below that it was published defended freedom of expression, as its members felt threatened by increasingly nationalist and fascist governments. It encouraged artists and writers to rehabilitate "degenerate" art in opposition to nationalism. The manifesto was initially published in Arabic and French, thus strengthening the group's international reach and its impact on the European surrealist movement.

Moreover, what would be the nature of a society where art was non-existent or hindered, for example, by political or religious authorities, or subject to those same authorities? Would it still be a human society? It may be that art is not merely an aspect of culture, nor even its most refined manifestation, but rather the essential condition of a culture and, by extension, of humanity itself.

If artistic freedom is the ability to conceive, create, and share diverse forms of cultural expression without government intervention, political pressure, or the influence of non-state actors, including the right of every individual to access these works, then artistic freedom is essential to the well-being of societies. It is also undeniable that freedom represents personal expression and must be guaranteed to creators or those who live according to their convictions. An artist enjoys total freedom in their studio, their creative space, in their writing, their dance, their theater, their filmmaking—in every artistic discipline. They are free, and when they reveal this freedom and independence of thought to their audience in a rigid, even hostile, environment, they remain true to themselves.

It is clear that if we evaluate the ethical dimension solely through the work itself and not its creator, we risk falling into the trap of political correctness and the banality of the message. This happens frequently and can lead to a certain superficiality. Similarly, the artist might succumb to cynicism. Regardless of the circumstances, the question of whether or not there is harmony between the artist's ethos—their life, actions, principles, and identity—and what they aspire to convey through their creations is a false debate.

Bibligraphy

- Bekkaj Rachid, Sociologie de l’art, L’art thématique Marocain, Ed Centre Sijilmassa, Rabat, 2025

- Bruno Pequignot : La question des œuvres en sociologie des arts et de la culture, Paris, 2007,p,32

- Cf. Pierre Laurent et Olivier Scheffer, 2006,p,28

- Francis Vanoye, Le spectateur, Dans Comprendre le cinéma et les images; Sous la direction de René Gardies ,Hors collection,Armand Colin ,2007

- Danielle Boutait , V : Questions de sens dans l’art : L’œuvre vue, non plus comme objet, mais comme champ d’expérience sensible

- https://recitsdartistes.org/textes-theoriques/experience-artistique/questions-de-sens-dans-lart/

- Françoise Chaudenson, À qui appartient l'œuvre d'art ?, Paris, Armand Colin, 2007.

- H. R. Jauss, Pour une esthétique de la réception (Paris : Éditions Gallimard, 1978)

- Madeleine Villard, La liberté d'expression dans l'histoire [archive], communication du 19 décembre 2001 à l'Académie du Var, Bulletin de l'Académie du Var, 2001, pp. 137-148

- Max Weber (trad. de l'allemand par Julien Freund), « L'objectivité de la connaissance dans les sciences et la politique sociales (1904) », dans Essais sur la théorie de la science, Plon, 1965

- Michel Haar, L’œuvre d'art: essai sur l'ontologie des œuvres, Paris, Hatier, 1994.

- N. Felshin, Nina (ed.), But Is It Art? The Spirit of Art as Activism (Seattle : Bay Press, 1995)

- S. Weil, Sur la science ,Paris : Gallimard, 1966

- Gérard Genette, L’œuvre de l’art. Immanence et transcendance, Paris, Le Seuil, coll. Poétique, 1994.

- Sylvie Dallet, Georges Chapouthier et Émile Noel(sous la direction de), La création –définitions et défis contemporains, Paris, Éditions L'Harmattan, 2009.

- Van Droumaguet, De quelle liberté l’art témoigne-t-il ?;

- http://www.placepublique-rennes.com/media_site/upload/PP40_liberte-art.pdf