I recently had a conversation with my boss about the significance of certain types and works of art. He questions the inclusion of a certain piece in the MOMA. This piece, as he describes it, is a large orange dot on a plain white canvas. The title? “Dot”. I can understand the questioning, and share some of it myself, but unfortunately, my artistic background and training makes me less dismissive of the work as art.
My immediate reaction is to be reminded of Kurt Vonnegut’s “The Sirens of Titian”* in which an alien robot has gone across galaxies to deliver the most vital message of all. The evolution of the entire human race through millennia is manipulated so he could eventually deliver this all-important message. Once he finds someone to receive the message, he opens it to reveal a dot. In his language, the dot simply means “Hello”. I wonder when “Dot” in the MOMA was created, and how the two pieces possibly relate to each other, and part of me is thrilled with the thought that this huge painting in a museum references one of my favorite novels.
Otherwise, I am divided on two responses. The first is that “Dot” is part of the conceptualistic art that draws upon the audience’s ability to give a non-art piece legitimacy. Given it’s simplicity, it could even be the artist’s intention to have the audience draw their own conclusions as to what it represents, even be it so far as to question why THIS is considered art. The reaction makes it art, and brings it closer to the realm of performance art: the audience becomes part of the performance, and becomes part of the ‘Dot‘.
My other response is based on various artistic representations of perfection. In one painting, perfection is signified by the musculature of the human body being accurately placed, and exaggerated with the intensity of movement. Years of figure study are required to accurately portray the human figure to this level of ‘perfection’ (as defined by the artist and society’s reaction). However, another shape that can take years to perfect, freehanded and without aid of tools, is the circle. The circle is the simplest form of perfection, the first and last perfect shape. Remove the circle, or the dot, and what else is there? Blankness, nothing, incomplete starts and an inconclusive ending. This “Dot” IS perfection, as defined by the era in which it was created. Written language requires the dot, be it the ‘dot’ over an ‘I’, the dot at the end of a sentence, or the dot of an ellipsis. Our very bodies include the dot by giving us perfect dark pupils that react and contract to light. Without this dot, there is no vision. Perhaps the ‘Dot’ itself is representation of the unencumbered vision of man; the ability to look inward through our own perfect circle.
In truth, Jim’s reaction to the piece is what ultimately gives such work validation–it creates questions, and offers the opportunity to educate and converse about the significance of art using modern day standards. For me, though I have not seen the piece in person, this “Dot” has received acceptance in my personal definition of what is, and isn’t, art. I encourage you to establish your own definitions, and to seek work that stimulates similar questions; perhaps you too will be able to ‘spot’ the importance of your ‘dot’.
*note: you really should read it for yourself. However, for those who want a synopsis, it’s here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sirens_of_Titan
*Ms. Wakefield admits she is a huge fan of polka doted clothing, but only if the polka dots are small.
Advice from the Curator's Desk 