I was listening to a podcast today in which four artists were talking about art. Not so much about their art, but rather, the bigger art world. They talked about modernism, post-modernism, post-post modernism, photo realism, abstraction, surrealism, representationalism, and a lot of other "isms" that have come and gone. And they talked about where their art fit into not just these "isms" but also the meta-picture - and by that they meant the bigger world of art in which all these isms were specific factions. And they talked about what it meant to be working in all/any of these -isms in a time in which all can be considered equally valid.
After a while, I got pissed off. These guys were talking about making and doing art like political analysts talk about politics. Everything has to fit into some faction or another, and there can't be any overlap. So you choose your big faction - say, realism versus abstraction - then you decide which sub faction and sub-sub-faction you want to work in, all the while keeping in mind the Big Picture of where your art fits in (or not) with everything else being produced today or over the course of all eternity, and what statement you're making by working in your particular style.
WTF?
I couldn't care less about factions. I have friends who create beautiful and loose landscapes, others who make wild abstractions, and others who make small figurative sculptures. I like their work because the artists are good at expressing themselves in their chosen media. I look at the work and see, not just paint on canvas, but something of the artists themselves. Richard's work is completely different from Genie's, and both are worlds apart from Margaret's. But each one is working in a unique way that they developed in order to see their worlds and make their own statements. They are working in ways that they HAVE to work, because nothing else will do it for them.
And that's what I do. I make art about people, and I want to tell their stories on paper or canvas. That's what I seem to be called to do. And Richard and Genie and Margaret are all called to do different things. We can't help ourselves - we're doing what we have to do.
But these guys in the podcast were talking about art as if they were choosing a style of art to make in order to be "relevant" to the art world. That's art-making as art-world ladder climbing. It's not art as personal expression.
Years ago, I saw an exhibition of student art at one of the country's premier art colleges. I saw a lot of stuff that was clearly intended to be "artier" than the next guy. I saw lots of personal styles and lots of high-quality execution, but not a lot of personal expression. A similar exhibition at my alma mater, UNC Asheville, showed artworks that were sometimes crude in concept or technique, but also expressed raw feeling. Give me that kind of work any day. Keep your "isms".
After a while, I got pissed off. These guys were talking about making and doing art like political analysts talk about politics. Everything has to fit into some faction or another, and there can't be any overlap. So you choose your big faction - say, realism versus abstraction - then you decide which sub faction and sub-sub-faction you want to work in, all the while keeping in mind the Big Picture of where your art fits in (or not) with everything else being produced today or over the course of all eternity, and what statement you're making by working in your particular style.
WTF?
I couldn't care less about factions. I have friends who create beautiful and loose landscapes, others who make wild abstractions, and others who make small figurative sculptures. I like their work because the artists are good at expressing themselves in their chosen media. I look at the work and see, not just paint on canvas, but something of the artists themselves. Richard's work is completely different from Genie's, and both are worlds apart from Margaret's. But each one is working in a unique way that they developed in order to see their worlds and make their own statements. They are working in ways that they HAVE to work, because nothing else will do it for them.
And that's what I do. I make art about people, and I want to tell their stories on paper or canvas. That's what I seem to be called to do. And Richard and Genie and Margaret are all called to do different things. We can't help ourselves - we're doing what we have to do.
But these guys in the podcast were talking about art as if they were choosing a style of art to make in order to be "relevant" to the art world. That's art-making as art-world ladder climbing. It's not art as personal expression.
Years ago, I saw an exhibition of student art at one of the country's premier art colleges. I saw a lot of stuff that was clearly intended to be "artier" than the next guy. I saw lots of personal styles and lots of high-quality execution, but not a lot of personal expression. A similar exhibition at my alma mater, UNC Asheville, showed artworks that were sometimes crude in concept or technique, but also expressed raw feeling. Give me that kind of work any day. Keep your "isms".
No comments:
Post a Comment