The Place of Meaning in Art

I have been called to task a few times now over the meaning of my work. Typically, the assertion is either that it "doesn't *mean* anything", or else I am explicitly asked: "*What* does it mean?"

The problem is, I neither understand nor credit the relevance of these assertions (the second, indeed, is far more an assertion than a question).

So far as literature goes, meaning is one of the many ways that a reader seeks to take control of a text. I say "take control" rather than "understand", because when a reader disputes the meaning of a text, there's a concomitant implication that the artistic status of that text is also somehow in dispute. This is specious reasoning that needs to be addressed.

I have said several times, both in my criticism and fiction (the two are inseparable; I'm not even sure the two are distinct), that art does not need to "mean" anything. It's a familiar enough idea; after all, if we failed to accept this, abstract art would be a contradiction in terms. But my assertion goes somewhat further:

1. Art actually occurs only where meaning is in jeopardy;

2. Art resists meaning because:

2.1 Meaning is exclusive, not inclusive: it prejudices the communication between people concerning a thing over the communication between a person and a thing, which it deems irrelevant. And even where people and things come to an agreement on this count, meaning still reduces communication to that of the lowest common denominator -- the group's maximum level of "meaningful" agreement. Art, on the other hand, does not distinguish between its recipients; even viewed as its own recipient, art resists the formation of meaning.

2.2 Meaning entails the abuse of power. It occurs where something is forcibly taken away from something or someone else. In other words, meaning cannot be exercised "neutrally." Where meaning is taken, meaning is also taken *away*; it is finite, indivisible, and shareable only in an impoverished form as per 2.1. Art, on the other hand, entails the balance of opposing forces; it is not an assertion, but a rearrangement.

2.3 Meaning is a socialising tool; it enforces a level of communal understanding at the expense of private (individual) understanding. It is the fear of losing meaning that holds a society together, even against itself: the rationalisation is that meaning and identity are inseparable.

2.4 Meaning comes to us coloured by a history of human engagement. Its elements -- words, sounds, colours and shapes -- are smooth at the edges, for the number of times, like old currency, they have changed hands in dispute; they carry the smell and taint of those struggles. It is impossible, for example, even to imagine the word "apostasy" without a sensation of dread.

3. Since art is compelled to work with second-hand products (2.4), it seeks to set its elements against themselves, so that all parts are in balance; the experience of this is effortless.