THE CONTEXT OF ART

~By James McCullough and Wes Vander Lugt

In two previous posts, we articulated an understanding of art as a communicative creation

involving three interwoven strands. First, we suggested that art involves craft, the skill and style
distinguishing art from other kinds of human making. Second, we indicated that art involves
content, the “story” a work expresses or participates in by means of paint, melody, structure,
movement, language and other artistic mediums. In this post, we are we are focusing on the
entire setting in which art is created and received, because art involves context.

Artists do not create contexts; they work within them. Context is the web of complex
circumstances in which artists work in relation to their physical environment, historical trends
and traditions, social movements, cultural values, intellectual perspectives, personal
commitments, and more. Likewise, art is received within a context of corresponding dynamics
that shape meaning and interpretation. As such, context is an inescapable dimension of art in
both its production and its reception and interpretation.

To clarify the role context plays in art, it may be helpful to use biblical exegesis as an analogy.
When reading Scripture, we need to be attentive to the there and then context of a passage and
its original meaning, while seeking to discover the here and now significance of the passage. For
example, Paul‘s letters communicated something to people in the first century before they
communicated something to us. In a similar manner, an artist makes and expresses something
relevant in a thereand then context, however revolutionary and progressive the art may be.
Likewise, the capacity of a work of art to communicate effectively in the here and now is an
attestation of context-transcending qualities in a given work or performance. Identifying these
qualities is the work of art criticism and education. The realization of context and context-
transcending qualities gives rise to a whole history of art reception, and plays a part in explaining
the phenomenon of the “classic” in a given genre of art.

Recognizing the context of art—both of its origin and reception—also requires us to realize the
multivalent and open-ended character of art interpretation. For example, the “meaning” of
Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony will vary depending on whether we are referring to its première in
1824, when Wilhelm Furtwängler conducted it in Berlin in 1942, or when Leonard Bernstein
conducted it before the newly opened Berlin Wall in 1989. Continuities and discontinuities of
meaning abound. A sensitive and informed engagement with a work of art, however, will be
cognizant of its originating context in all its complexity, while continuing to interact with
meanings forged in ever-changing contexts of reception. Moreover, highlighting the context of
art allows us to relate, when possible, aspects of authorial intent in dynamic interplay with other
contextually relevant interpretations in our own communicative encounters with art.

The driving motivation in this series of posts on the craft, content, and context of art is our desire
to make art accessible to a wider audience so that they might enjoy and discover how art plays a
significant role in their lives. We find that analyses of art focusing solely on emotional
expressiveness, moral appropriateness or even redemptive potentiality place undue limits on
understanding and engaging with art. By contrast, we desire to be attentive to art on its own
terms before evaluating or imposing meanings on it. We believe that focusing on the craft,
content, and context of art enables us to follow an inductive approach and to understand and
engage with art in a more satisfying and comprehensive way.