Aristic Awareness and Critical Inquiries

Due to the near flood conditions I didn't get to First Friday; so, the following text is a philosophical exploration about plan, intuition, consideration, critical inquiry, and 'Why?'

When one asks an artist about a facet of said artist's work, one assumes that the artist, since she is the creator, has a privileged perspective in regard to her work. But is this assumption valid? When one chooses to act, one is making the decision to transition from being above to in. Prior to acting, one can consider many actions to perform but once one chooses and becomes entrenched in the action, one becomes immediately biased for that action. [1]

Creation as action is no different. An artist can consider, plan, strategize, but once he commences in the creation, he is playing and not coaching. Then again, equating the creation of an artwork with an action may be a stretch. A parallel between the creative process and a series of actions is better. This shift in thought allows for there to be gaps between actions. Artists commonly use these gaps as chances to go from "shake it all about" to "out" where they can refocus their lens. Also, these gaps permit valid inquiries into process. A viewer who was either privy to the progress of the work or can recognize specific "gap decisions"can now celebrate or criticize a specific twist or turn into the evolution of the work. One can ask, "Why did you choose to place a blue veil here?" And the artist, can dive back into gap X and retrieve his reasoning for "why blue veil."

Now, what if an artist disregarded gaps? What if the artist decided to act (without even previous strategy) and not back up or step out? What if, in G.E.M. Anscombe's method of examining "Why?" questions (in fact, my entire investigative process here is mimetic of her deductions but within the context of art), the artist "just swam" through the current of creative dilemmas without reason? This method would naturally seem to make the artistic output more susceptible to criticism because the viewer will seemingly bear many unconsidered options and can therefore impart a vast amount of propositions for potential "others" of the given work. "Well, what if you did Y? Did you consider Y? What if you did Z? Did you consider Z?" And since the artist disregarded all gaps in which Y may have come up, there's a great chance that the viewer will overwhelm the artist with variable constructions that the artist left unexamined.

The answer "I just did it this way" is left in the dust in such situations and will not be accepted, especially in the academic context. "I just did it this way" is not a reason for 'Why?' and leaves the artist vulnerable to multileveled attacks. But what if the artist says, "I followed my intuition"? Does this response change the situation? How is intuition different from "I just did it?" In Anscombe's considerations of intent, she comments on her wish to avoid "irreducible intuition." Her main reasoning is that it ends inquiry. Intuition is a logically unjustifiable private cause with feeling as guide. When one plays the "intuition card" one is denying critical inquiry. Because 'Why?' is ended by "it's what I felt."

Or is it? Can intuition be different in separate circumstances? What if we consider the fourth stage of competence (I forget where I learned the stages of competence from but they are not my own) in which an acquired skill is able to be employed unconsciously? The four stages of competence are unconscious incompetence...when one does not know how to succeed at learning a skill and as of yet is unaware of what keeps them from understanding why they fail, conscious incompetence is when one has learned enough to know why they aren't successful at mastering a certain skill and what they have to do to progress, conscious competence is when one has acquired said skill but still has to concentrate intensely to perform it, and unconscious competence is when one has learned a skill to the point of mastering it and one can do perform it easily or "intuitively?"

Can one's intuition be learned? Is the intuition of an amateur different from the intuition of a master? It seems so. Once one has practiced said skill for a long period of time, memory acquired through repetition can lead to a kind of learned intuition. So, can the answer, "I did it intuitively" be acceptable from a master and not from a student? Perhaps...since the fourth level of skill competence is only accomplished by mastery. And by definition, a student is not a master. A student claiming conclusion by intuition is inherently a suspect claim that cannot be validated until the student becomes the professor. Then, perhaps, intuition can be a justifiable reason.

But even so, is it then irreducible? If a master intuitively works, does that mean we cannot validly question or "breakdown" her intent? Or are their concepts so ingrained in their intuitive practice that said ideas are immediately apparent through the product? Such questions seem too contextual for abstract inquiry. And in this line of questions skill and idea are too blurred. Just because a master intuitively practices a skill that does not mean that there isn't a new concept subject to criticism influencing their intuitive use of a skill. A painter who is skilled at hyperrealism could be applying a new idea as a guide for this specific use of hyperrealism. And even if their hyperrealist skill can't be questioned, their idea, context, or method for employing the skill can be criticized.

This exploration is leading to skill and I want to veer it back for a summary of what I've thought so far. Action is blind, the artist's ability to implement gaps between action during creation allow the artist to "step out" and consider what she's done and what she will do, an artist who disregards these gaps has a better chance of leaving many unconsidered aspects that can then be brought to surface by the professor to show the student's lack of awareness, the last comment is dependent upon the artist's maturity level, i.e., a master's ignorance of gaps is due to learned intuition (unconscious competence) whereas a student's dismissal of gaps seems premature and, finally, even though a master's skill is immediately apparent (or it is?), the concept behind his employment of skill in a certain manner can be criticized.

I still wrestle with the idea of "learned intuition" and maybe it's because of the use of the word "intuition." Previously I thought of intuition as immediate awareness guided by feeling without thought...the fleeting temporality of immediacy probably led to me holding any kind of "learned immediacy" suspect. But it seems that from practice, one can, in the mode of muscle memory (muscles can be trained to do certain movements naturally), simply employ a skill "intuitively."

There's a logical inconsistency in the above text. My consideration of a student's dismissal of gaps transitions into an examination of a master doing "the same thing." But in this transition, I seemingly change from talking about a work being entirely completed intuitively to a skill being used intuitively. The young student denied all conscious intermediate reflections and the master was just not questioning his own skill (an absurd inquiry in the first place). So, if the master disregards all considerations of context, form, concepts, etc. by saying "I made the work intuitively" this action may be more justified due to the master's years of experience but it still defeats inquiry. And when I say 'inquiry" I mean inquiry directed at the artist. Of course, people can discuss the work critically amongst themselves (which may lead to a better conclusion anyway due the questionable notion of the artist's privileged perspective...especially under the guise of intuition). But investigations of intent by the viewer will go unsatisfied if the artist claims intuition.

Anyway, thanks for reading and I can't believe the New York Giants are the Super Bowl champs!...

[1] however, when one prods an artist about a work, it is understood that the artist is no longer in the action but assumably has had time to reflection upon "the action" and perhaps her privileged perspective comes from being strategist, creator, and reflector...this view renders the artist less blind.