IV. Conclusion

 

Romare Bearden, Morning of the Rooster, 1980 

 

IV. Conclusion
Until now I have traced the main motifs in a whole range of Romare Bearden’s works by surveying his representative works. While I am studying Bearden’s life and his work I have realized again it is almost impossible to articulate and to explain exactly because of his broad scope tendency and his deep and invisible philosophy of art. Even worse because of rack of the time and my ability I can not approach to his art world deeply. But, even though I just screeched the surface of Bearden’s art I am little bit proud that I can find his main thought of art through out entire his life and work, and the influence of his ethnic identity on his work.

During studying contemporary and modern art I have frequently asked myself: ‘What is art?’, ‘What should art be?’ Now I feel almost modern and post-modern artists try to always seek different and new ways from the tradition. Even they do not research the past history of art sincerely. Or they tend to follow the ways of preceding master without any criticism. And their arts are getting more and more complicated and conceptualized. Naturally it is very hard to understand and to recognize; even it s very hard for art historians to understand. Can we call them a work of art? What is purpose of art? I believe artists try to say something to the audience (objective) through their works. It (something) could be a form of beauty, narratives, and any kind of thought or philosophy. They, the artist and the audience, can communicate each other by this form. This is the interaction between them. Therefore, if this interaction is interrupted between them it is very wrong and meaningless. For this purpose a work of art should contain certain universality or generic form or truth.

 

College Art Association has treated the issue, ‘The Crisis in the Discipline’ in Art Journal, Winter 1982 (Guest Editor: Dr. Henry Zerner). This journal includes Zerner’s Editor’s Statement (The Crisis in the Discipline) with 6 articles: O. Garbar, “On the University of the History of Art”; O.K. Werckmeister, “Radical Art History”; J. Hart, “Reinterpreting Wolflin”; D. Summers, “The Visual Arts and the problem of Art Historical Description”; R. Krauss, “Photography’s Discursive Space”; D. Preziosi, “Constru(ct)ing the Origins of Art.” Mostly they pointed out the limit of art historic discipline and art history. They criticized art history at the schools has been institutionalized and diagramed, so we could not develop this subject properly. And tendency of art history was getting minute and focused much more on iconography, but this is unsuitable to modern art. And because of this tendency we did not think fundamental questions such as ‘what is art?’ or ‘What is value (meaning) of art?’ This discussion is very meaningful to me, but there is a limit.

Back to the questions, ‘What is Art?’ and ‘What should Art be?’ For the answer to these questions I would like to remind two Romare Bearden’s quotes: 

 

“Art Should be understood and loved by the people. ”
“… ,but true artist feels that there is only one art – and it belongs to all mankind.”

 

As I described above, two Bearden’s quotes suggest universality, in other words quite understandable to all mankind in art. I also strongly believe art should be shared by everybody not just for art related people – minor group of people, and art should be based on certain kind of philosophy.

 

Bearden’s work and his theme of art have lived in the audience’s heart forever. 

ⓒ 모암문고 www.moamcollection.org