Art, what is and what isn't
Okay, so the first thing that comes to mind is my most favorite subject. Art, and what is and is not art. This is a subject I have spent many years pondering with my friend Aaron, and by and large, we have narrowed down the field quite alot. But Aaron and I still differ on a great many things. and so this posting will get into some of those debates. Maybe with this "blog" format we will be able to organize it better than the random hundreds of pages of emails that we have written back and forth. Anyone that is a registered user is welcom to join the debate. and it is free to register. Just remember it is my blog, and I reserve the right to be a stingy little cry baby if I dont like what you are saying!
Art, is a concept that largely was created by two events. Despite what most people think, which is that art has been around since the caveman days. That belief is taught in schools and so therefore is the dominant belief. But it is a wrong one all the same. First the impressionistic artists, Monet, Manet, and the like, which was encouraged by the french Salons that were selling paintings as decor rather than important spiritual, and personal communication, as it had been in years past. The concept of the Salons can be traced back to one of the most influential families in the history of painting and art, and that is the Medici family. And the second reason, and most damaging, would be the philosophies of Immanual Kant and his essay entitled the Critique of Pure Reason. Kant and his philosophies have done much for our society, and where he was right on many things, he was not on a few others, we have chosen however to continue to buy into his philosophies, because they make more sence and are easier to accept. illusions are always easier to accept than truths. Kant discuss's what is beauty and what is not. Unfortunately I have not finished reading this critique because of many readings I am in the middle of at one time, and so I cannot speak with confidence on that aspect of this discussion at this time, ( but soon). However, it does not take a rocket scientist to see the de-evolution of quality, and mastery, of communication skills, on the canvas since the publication of this crituque to the masses.
However, I have been looking into the recent forms of illustrative and commercial art as the true evolution of what began hundreds of years ago with the rennasance, and even more powerfully with the Baroque periods and artists like Artemesia Gentillischi and Carravaggio, or Vellasquez, and the ever overpopularized Rembrandt, who I feel is as brilliant as any other, but takes more credit for things that he was not the originator of. much of the "mood" and lighting that made those paintings so powerful came from Carravaggio before him.
Anyhow, I got off on a tangent. what is art then? That answer you will have to gather as you continue to piece it all together thruogh this discussion. because it is everything, and nothing, depending on the side of the fence you stand on. it is insult, or honor, it is garbage, or creme de la creme. But one thing that art is not...it is not what I want to do, I don't do art, I am not an artist. I am painter, or an illustrator, to be an artist is an insult. because it lumps me in with all the crap that goes to the museums and hangs on the walls. The dot in the middle of the canvas, is just as important as the months it took to realistically portray a figure, and to have that figure be able to speak to the audience with true, and pure emotion. A dot will never do that. In fact the only thing that gives that dumb dot any worth, is the museum that is willing to put it on its wall and the patrons it convinces to come look at it. And the only message it is trying communicate, if any, is: "Am I art, what do you think?" a question that seems to have been repeadely asked over and over again for the last 60 plus years. and all it seems to be doing is asking, not even caring for the response, if any.
This is where Ego comes into play, which contributes to what is and is not art. There is rarely any humilty in an artist that hangs that kind of filth on a wall and claims to be great, or even worthwhile. in fact he/ might scream from atop the hills of martyrdom, that he is the epitome of "starving artist" funny, I have never heard the term, starving commercial artist, or starving painter, because they can let go of their ego. They can find work, and they can stay true to themsleves at the same time.
Reality is the basis of which all paintings should be done in. And in two aspects, the subject matter, and the execution. And it should always be communicated from the heart of the painter, in other words, the painter should not be painting Christ on a cross, but himself, a painter should never paint a child weeping, but himself. A painter only knows himself. He is only completely at one with himself. And all that he paints, he starts with himself. There currently is a need in our society to relate to pain, we spend so much time running and hiding from it, that someone needs to have the courage to explore their own pain and paint it. This is what is the most famous paintings of our current time. And will continue to be until they take over the walls of the museums. In truth, I dont feel that it would ever be appropriate to hang in a museum. It should always be an intamate showing, privately funded. censorship is not allowed whatsoever, funding can never influence results.
Last thought. If you criticize my spelling, grammar, or punctuation, you will not be welcome here. so get over it.
Art, is a concept that largely was created by two events. Despite what most people think, which is that art has been around since the caveman days. That belief is taught in schools and so therefore is the dominant belief. But it is a wrong one all the same. First the impressionistic artists, Monet, Manet, and the like, which was encouraged by the french Salons that were selling paintings as decor rather than important spiritual, and personal communication, as it had been in years past. The concept of the Salons can be traced back to one of the most influential families in the history of painting and art, and that is the Medici family. And the second reason, and most damaging, would be the philosophies of Immanual Kant and his essay entitled the Critique of Pure Reason. Kant and his philosophies have done much for our society, and where he was right on many things, he was not on a few others, we have chosen however to continue to buy into his philosophies, because they make more sence and are easier to accept. illusions are always easier to accept than truths. Kant discuss's what is beauty and what is not. Unfortunately I have not finished reading this critique because of many readings I am in the middle of at one time, and so I cannot speak with confidence on that aspect of this discussion at this time, ( but soon). However, it does not take a rocket scientist to see the de-evolution of quality, and mastery, of communication skills, on the canvas since the publication of this crituque to the masses.
However, I have been looking into the recent forms of illustrative and commercial art as the true evolution of what began hundreds of years ago with the rennasance, and even more powerfully with the Baroque periods and artists like Artemesia Gentillischi and Carravaggio, or Vellasquez, and the ever overpopularized Rembrandt, who I feel is as brilliant as any other, but takes more credit for things that he was not the originator of. much of the "mood" and lighting that made those paintings so powerful came from Carravaggio before him.
Anyhow, I got off on a tangent. what is art then? That answer you will have to gather as you continue to piece it all together thruogh this discussion. because it is everything, and nothing, depending on the side of the fence you stand on. it is insult, or honor, it is garbage, or creme de la creme. But one thing that art is not...it is not what I want to do, I don't do art, I am not an artist. I am painter, or an illustrator, to be an artist is an insult. because it lumps me in with all the crap that goes to the museums and hangs on the walls. The dot in the middle of the canvas, is just as important as the months it took to realistically portray a figure, and to have that figure be able to speak to the audience with true, and pure emotion. A dot will never do that. In fact the only thing that gives that dumb dot any worth, is the museum that is willing to put it on its wall and the patrons it convinces to come look at it. And the only message it is trying communicate, if any, is: "Am I art, what do you think?" a question that seems to have been repeadely asked over and over again for the last 60 plus years. and all it seems to be doing is asking, not even caring for the response, if any.
This is where Ego comes into play, which contributes to what is and is not art. There is rarely any humilty in an artist that hangs that kind of filth on a wall and claims to be great, or even worthwhile. in fact he/ might scream from atop the hills of martyrdom, that he is the epitome of "starving artist" funny, I have never heard the term, starving commercial artist, or starving painter, because they can let go of their ego. They can find work, and they can stay true to themsleves at the same time.
Reality is the basis of which all paintings should be done in. And in two aspects, the subject matter, and the execution. And it should always be communicated from the heart of the painter, in other words, the painter should not be painting Christ on a cross, but himself, a painter should never paint a child weeping, but himself. A painter only knows himself. He is only completely at one with himself. And all that he paints, he starts with himself. There currently is a need in our society to relate to pain, we spend so much time running and hiding from it, that someone needs to have the courage to explore their own pain and paint it. This is what is the most famous paintings of our current time. And will continue to be until they take over the walls of the museums. In truth, I dont feel that it would ever be appropriate to hang in a museum. It should always be an intamate showing, privately funded. censorship is not allowed whatsoever, funding can never influence results.
Last thought. If you criticize my spelling, grammar, or punctuation, you will not be welcome here. so get over it.
posted by sketchtopia at 9:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home