F-O-R-M

What makes art what it is? Susan Sontag thinks the point of art lies within its form and not its content as she explains in her 1966 essay Against Interpretation. There’s a lot of work made throughout history that proves the truth of this idea. One of my favorites is the work of writer, musician and visual artist Patti Smith. In 1975, Smith released her intense 8 song debut album Horses. The opener of the album is a song called ‘Gloria: in excelsis deo’ which is actually a cover of ‘Gloria’ written by Van Morrison in 1964. Susan Sontag’s conviction that art is about form rather than content is exemplified through Patti Smith’s ‘Gloria: in excelsis deo’ through the way that gender, vocal delivery and historical context give this song its iconic presence in rock and roll history.

In her essay Sontag explains the way that the interpretation of art can translate to its constriction. She says that to delineate a specific meaning from a work instead of simply experiencing the work as a boundless expression is robbing it of its true purpose. Sontag in particular talks about how “reducing the work of art to its content and then interpreting that [tames] the work of art” (Sontag 5). And that instead discourse around art “should be to show how it is what it is” or in other words its form (Sontag 10). Part of a song’s form is who sings it. The feeling this song conveys when sung by Patti Smith is different and arguably more potent than when sung by Van Morrison.  ‘Gloria’ is a song about a woman. The vocalist sings about having an intense desire for this woman. Oh she looks so good. She looks so fine. Oh I’m gonna make her mine. The lyrics follow a loose objectifying trajectory and certainly misogynistic attitude, pretty normal for a lot of songs at the time. Of course Van Morrison is a musical legend and great performer but Smith’s presence as a woman and boundary pushing artist at the time singing essentially the same song gives it layers of subtext. Just the change in who (form) the same words (content) are coming from gives this song a specific and complex presence as a piece of work. 

Another aspect of the song’s ‘form’ is the delivery: not only that it is performed by Smith but how it is performed by Smith. Sontag wrote in her essay that “real art has the ability to make us nervous” (Sontag 5). Good art pushes boundaries and pushing boundaries is pushing what is comfortable and therefore good art can cause discomfort. A lot of times what produces this vital discomfort comes from the quality of form, the way in which the work exists. There’s a section in the song where Smith sings repeated fragments of melody faster and faster and higher pitched and higher pitched– Here she comes. Walkin’ down the street, Here she comes. Comin’ through my door, Here she comes. Crawlin’ up my stair, Here she comes. Smith at this point is singing with a tonation that is almost violent, as if she’s fighting the song from the inside out like maybe she’s trapped inside of it. A delivery that can’t help but make the audience want to crawl out of their own skin. Smith’s delivery is irresistibly moving, her delivery is what pushes us to feel her words more deeply. What makes Smith’s work notable, really- what takes it to a place of timeless and potent expression is precisely that: the way in which it is expressed. 

Another piece of context that makes up the form of a work of art is the time period in which it was made. What was being experienced alongside the release of this song and/or what was it being compared to? In this case Smith’s ‘Gloria’ and its value as a work of art is affected by the time it was released- 1975. In the mid seventies the feminist movement was in its “second wave”, women were striking for equal rights and pay, the Vietnam War had just ended and the Watergate scandal had just taken place. The political climate context from which audiences were hearing Patti Smith was different from that of 1964. With the increased discourse surrounding women’s rights especially, Patti Smith vocalizing this song meant and means something more than without such historical context. The fact that simply placing the essentially same song in a new time period changed its value and potency proves Sontag’s point that the essence of art comes from its form and not its content. 

 Smith and Sontag both show us why it’s important to look at art through a lens of form and not purely content. In 1966 when Sontag wrote her essay she said that it is “important [now] to recover our senses,” that “we must learn to see more, to hear more, to feel more” (Sontag 10). Form is what takes art to a deeper level of feeling for us, like with Smith’s song. The fact that it is her, Patti Smith, singing, the way she vocalizes the song and the era in which it was heard and perceived all amount to the work’s artistic value. Each of those aspects of form allow us to feel the song on a deeper level. Sontag’s belief remains timely, that in order to truly appreciate art, we must focus on how we can most fully experience it. In a time of heightened technological development, when there are so many tools to learn, it seems like people have an even stronger compulsion to know everything and to know why it is- to boil often complex concepts into confined parameters. It seems as though modern talk of art and culture increasingly ignores context or form. But there is nothing without context. There is nothing without form. In alignment with what Smith and Sontag’s ideas show us, we must push against giving bounds to by definition what is supposed to remain boundless.