“Labels are a necessity in the organization of knowledge, but they also constrain our

understanding.” Discuss this statement with reference to the arts AOK.

Labels have been an integral part of society for as long as one can remember. They help

us categorize the information we constantly have to process in all aspects of our lives. Most

would say that labels are all but essential to organize the vast amount of information that

surrounds us, but there are ways in which these labels can be limiting. According to the Oxford

English Dictionary, to label something is to “assign to a category, especially inaccurately or

restrictively.” The definition of labelling itself highlights the constraints of putting things into

categories when most objects, people, and experiences in this world are multifaceted and

complex.

While labels are found in every area of knowledge, from the meticulously classified

periodic table in science to the careful categorization of the past in history, labels in art have been

a subject of discussion for as long as the discipline has existed. Art is arguably an incredibly

subjective and personal form of expression, making it all the more challenging to decide whether

or not something is art, much less assign rigid labels to classify it. In the history of art, strict

labelling and established rules have been broken time and time again, with people constantly

pushing the boundaries of the subject area. For example, when the realism genre began after the

French Revolution in 1848, it was not labelled as “art” since it didn’t depict biblical figures or

royalty. However, as more artists began experimenting with realistic representations, people's

previous notions about what they considered art shifted. The label of “what is art” expanded,

slowly becoming less constricting and broadening the field's horizons. Looking back on this

example, it appears almost ridiculous that realism could have been controversial when it is now

considered one of the most typical art forms. However, this shift in understanding was only
possible when revolutionary artists challenged the rigid labels surrounding art. A more extreme

example of the reforming of labels in art was the rise of abstract expressionism post-World War

II. Many could not understand and went so far as to shun this art style, as the labels previously

associated with art had no explanation for these images with no clear structure, pattern, or

recognizable figures. However, as the definitions of art shifted again to encompass this new

wave of artists, people began to broaden their understanding of art as a form of expression versus

a constrained group of similar paintings. Both of these examples demonstrate why rigid labels

can limit our understanding of what is considered art. However, they do not reject the idea of

labels entirely but highlight the necessity of making them flexible and open to change.

Another issue surrounding labels in art is the classification of specific artists and their

work as “masterpieces.” While an innumerable number of different artists exist and have existed

in the past, particular names immediately come to mind when thinking of the field. When

confronted with art created by these “masters,” we often don’t question what makes their

paintings the best. Instead, we often follow the public consensus that has labelled these art pieces

as groundbreaking or skillful in fear of appearing ignorant or foolish. However, this severely

limits one’s personal understanding of the art. Suppose the arbitrary label assigned to an artist by

the majority is the sole reason for calling something a masterpiece. In that case, there is no real

analysis and understanding of their work occurring. One such example is the artist Pablo Picasso,

most known for his atypical and abstract faces and figures. As Picasso’s works have been

unanimously labelled as masterpieces and Picasso himself as a pioneer, many blindly choose to

accept his work as some of the very best. However, there have been recent criticisms of Picasso,

calling his art out as devoid of real meaning and relying on his established label as a famous

artist to appear thoughtful. While labelling artists can be problematic, there are instances where
labels may be beneficial in helping one understand the true meaning of an art piece and having a

clearer understanding of what it represents. For example, when viewing the abstract work of

Jackson Pollock, it is easy to be confused by the intent of the haphazard drips and splashes of

paint. However, by examining the label of abstract expressionism and identifying Pollock as a

trailblazer in the field, it becomes easier to understand why his paintings are held in such high

regard. Labels are an essential tool in helping one make sense of the art world, but relying too

heavily on them can limit one’s ability to interpret a work of art critically.

It is impossible to imagine the world of art without labels and categories associated with

the art and the artists. These labels hold a lot of power and can constrict those who are creating

art, as well as those who are viewing and attempting to understand it. However, it is necessary to

have some level of classification associated with styles of art in order to assist the viewer in their

understanding. In the end, it comes down to rejecting the rigidity of these labels and being open

to questioning and changing our definitions as the world of art advances.