Why So Literal?

As I begin my second year of my MFA, I am oddly reminded of my first year of undergrad at Cornish College of the Arts in Seattle. I remember that year very clearly. "This year is designed to demolish any previous conceptions you have had about art." I was told. I was taught how to create sculptures out of found objects, to incorporate my own body in my work, to think of the negative space rather than the positive. It was all rather eye opening and intriguing.

However, one particular lecture I had I remember my professor showing slides of art pieces of contemporary artists as we all shyly gave our opinions on them. For the life of me I wish I could remember which pieces they were, or if I even liked them, but there was one in particular where I remember my teacher telling us students that the work was clearly to literal, and it should have been more ambiguous.

I am unsure if it was because of my naturally argumentative nature, or if I really did see red flags of close-mindedness go up, but I began to disagree with her, interrupting her lecture. "I'm not saying there is anything wrong with ambiguous art, or art that doesn't clearly have any meaning, but cant there be a time and place for art that does have meaning? I mean, the problem with ambiguity is that it tends to be unrelatable for people who don't have an invested interest in the arts. Whereas I find people outside of the art world are more drawn to pieces that are more obvious. So what's wrong with that?"

Years later, as I continue to become engulfed by what is called the "art world" my soul begins to fade more and more because my natural tendency to make art with a narrative is being drowned with ambiguity. So I go back to my original naive question: what is wrong with being literal in art? I am open for arguments, but for now I am of the opinion that it is time for the art world to get over itself. Let’s try looking at things with the childlike fascination like artists used to.