1.1 Representation as essential function of artworks

To what extent is representation an essential function of artworks?

Representation is an essential function of artwork to the extent that artwork is a purposeful rendition meant (by the artist or by someone else) to be viewed and/or contemplated by someone, whether that be people visiting a museum or just the artist him/herself. This doesn’t mean that there is necessarily anything specific represented objectively by artwork; it just means that anything deemed “art” is indicative of something more than the basic physicality of the combined mediums. Even abstract art that is not meant to represent anything specifically can come to represent an idea, an emotion, the time period at which it was considered “beautiful” or even “ugly”, etc. And once an artwork is produced, or once something that was already produced is decided to be “art”, there is almost an infinite number of representations it could embody for all the subjects who view it and for the artist as his/her relationship with his/her own work changes over time. Inasmuch as “art” is (1) purposefully created and (2) meant to be viewed at some point by someone, art always represents something to the artist and something to a viewer.

An interesting paradox about this, I think, is that the label “art” is what makes artists produce representations and makes viewers interpret representations in physical  materializations. Things not considered “art”—a basic table or chair or clothing, etc.—is not supposed to bring to mind anything other than what it is, is not supposed to necessarily represent anything other than its own physicality. But as soon as something—sometimes the exact same thing as things not deemed “art”—is called “art” by someone, that person has decided that the thing represents something other than what it is, anything other than what it technically physically is.

It seems strange to say that art has an essential function, but I think it always does. ‘Functional art’ brings to mind things like furniture or pottery, but even wall art has some intention—some function—behind it as well, but that function is to evoke thoughts or feelings. “To decorate a room” translates, to me, into the function “to create a more mentally stimulating, interesting environment,” and this function is just as integral a part of human existence as sleeping or eating. Though it’s true we can’t survive without food and sleep, I don’t think we can survive and simultaneously fail to find art. Art is something that always embodies a human connection between the artist and the viewer (even if the latter person is just an older version of the former person), and so humans “need” the stimulation of art in the same way that they “need” those human social connections they find in community. Bodily needs are not the only human needs because humans do not experience themselves as merely bodies; precisely, they experience those bodies. Art is intrinsically something that one experiences, not just something that one creates or looks at. Some experiences change people, and some pass by virtually unnoticed, and all of this depends on the person’s experiences and predispositions and personalities. But because art is functional, it will always be created and interpreted—experienced—as long as people live.