You're my boy Blue!
I thought to myself, I'm going to have to write a long drawn out reply, so why not make it a post? A comment from this post:
Here I go with something much less than a well thought out paper...
So, When I say something is just there to exist, I think of paintings by painters such as Rothko, Twombly and Pollock. They seem to say nothing, no new perspectives on the world, no little insights. They paint huge canvassas with what seems to be nothing in mind except to create a mood, perhaps there is some elements of composition and color...sometimes not. I believe that some of these pieces are beautiful, but I don't believe these pieces are trying to explain to me how corrupt and blemished American history is (ideas from the Million Man March artist). I don't believe these pieces could ever transmit this kind of information to me, thus I believe it would be BS for them to try to get me to believe so.
So, is it true when you say that arts purpose is to exist? I should think about this...because I'm not sure, maybe if I could understand what art is actually that would help.
Ok, where I become oxymoronic...good catch, I thought about that a little when I wrote it. I thought it would seem dumb for them to go through the trouble of being able to verbally communicate what they are saying with a piece of art...because if they were able to do that, then why is there art in the first place. To clarify though seems to take me to several different places with tangents splitting off in several different directions.
1. Should an artist be able to communicate their art through language? I think they should, off the top. At first glance it seems that language would be more universal that art, a larger majority of people in the world speak than create "art." It seems to be the common denominator. But language is a representation in symbols of feelings as well. If I say to someone in English that I feel sad, not everyone in the world will understand. If I paint a picture of myself tormented in a sad face, I think a larger portion could understand this. So with that, it seems like art is the common denominator...a better "language"...thus, why would I think that "art" needs to be explained with language? That doesn't seem right anymore, so I'm thinking I'm wrong here.
2. Why does an artist ever decide to try to explain their art? I believe first and foremost that art should be created solely for the artist. So now I'm wondering, is it art when an artist creates art for someone else? Like a client. But going back a bit to art not created for anyone but him or herself, why should an artist ever be compelled to want to explain it? Is it some sort of PR? Is it an attempt to sell out? Is it simply that they are happy that others want to know about their art? Why would an artist care? Is it neat that others are finding enjoyment out of something that created enjoyment for the artist? It is great to know this, but why would people ask about the art? The art is there, any extra information about the art seems to be an attempt to enhance or take away from the piece...why would a viewer do this? Why do we do this? I know I'm guilty too. Shouldn't the art just be there, take it or leave it? Shouldn't the art be giving you everything that you need? Asking for more information almost (at this point) seems to be disrespecting the artist and the art. So, why would an artist want to explain to someone these things if they aren't grasping on to it in the first place? Now I'm thinking that there is something wrong with an artist that tries to explain the work.
3. For myself, I want to be more honest in my work. If I decide to talk about it, then I want to be able be as honest as possible with my explanation. If my art means nothing, then say so. If I made a mistake and it came out right, never take credit and say it was purposeful (tho, I don't remember ever doing that anyways)... but I have felt proud of mistakes and I think pride should be dropped as well. This leads me to wonder, like I did before, why then am I communicating something through art if I'm able to communicate it through words? Are there are things that are better communicated with art than with words? In that, there seems to be a solution of sorts. Moods, ambience, abstractions...the way blue makes me feel. If I paint a huge canvass with different shades of blue...let's say an abstract painting of only blue, with no real forms within the painting. What could I say about it? If I were honest to myself with the painting and understood what it was that I'm feeling...I can't explain to anyone the exact feelings...I could tell them though that I like the way these different shades go together, that they make me feel calm, maybe that they remind me of the ocean, but in the end, the most honest answer is just that I like blue. I can explain what I am doing with the painting, but I did not communicate the meaning of the painting through language...nor did I try.
Well that feels good! Just another step closer to understanding why the hell I'm alive for. Thanks -anonymous.
Anonymous said...
[One last point...some art CAN be incredibly beautiful and have no other meaning except for the fact that it exists.] This is the purpose of art, for the purpose of only existance is there are. I do agree that some art has other purpose but the main point in the world is to be there, to exists in a way that it just simply does. I don't agree with you on... [but I still think an artist should work on being confident and understand what they are saying with their art.] at the point when you said that you became oxymoronic because earlier you stated [A visual artist supposedly chooses visual art as a form of communication because it one of their best ways to communicate. If speaking was the best way for the them to convey their feelings, then perhaps they wouldn't be doing visual art.]make up your mind... cuz you never know if you'll be able to explain yourself/art to any random person on the street if you were put it on the line.
- anonymous
Here I go with something much less than a well thought out paper...
So, When I say something is just there to exist, I think of paintings by painters such as Rothko, Twombly and Pollock. They seem to say nothing, no new perspectives on the world, no little insights. They paint huge canvassas with what seems to be nothing in mind except to create a mood, perhaps there is some elements of composition and color...sometimes not. I believe that some of these pieces are beautiful, but I don't believe these pieces are trying to explain to me how corrupt and blemished American history is (ideas from the Million Man March artist). I don't believe these pieces could ever transmit this kind of information to me, thus I believe it would be BS for them to try to get me to believe so.
So, is it true when you say that arts purpose is to exist? I should think about this...because I'm not sure, maybe if I could understand what art is actually that would help.
Ok, where I become oxymoronic...good catch, I thought about that a little when I wrote it. I thought it would seem dumb for them to go through the trouble of being able to verbally communicate what they are saying with a piece of art...because if they were able to do that, then why is there art in the first place. To clarify though seems to take me to several different places with tangents splitting off in several different directions.
1. Should an artist be able to communicate their art through language? I think they should, off the top. At first glance it seems that language would be more universal that art, a larger majority of people in the world speak than create "art." It seems to be the common denominator. But language is a representation in symbols of feelings as well. If I say to someone in English that I feel sad, not everyone in the world will understand. If I paint a picture of myself tormented in a sad face, I think a larger portion could understand this. So with that, it seems like art is the common denominator...a better "language"...thus, why would I think that "art" needs to be explained with language? That doesn't seem right anymore, so I'm thinking I'm wrong here.
2. Why does an artist ever decide to try to explain their art? I believe first and foremost that art should be created solely for the artist. So now I'm wondering, is it art when an artist creates art for someone else? Like a client. But going back a bit to art not created for anyone but him or herself, why should an artist ever be compelled to want to explain it? Is it some sort of PR? Is it an attempt to sell out? Is it simply that they are happy that others want to know about their art? Why would an artist care? Is it neat that others are finding enjoyment out of something that created enjoyment for the artist? It is great to know this, but why would people ask about the art? The art is there, any extra information about the art seems to be an attempt to enhance or take away from the piece...why would a viewer do this? Why do we do this? I know I'm guilty too. Shouldn't the art just be there, take it or leave it? Shouldn't the art be giving you everything that you need? Asking for more information almost (at this point) seems to be disrespecting the artist and the art. So, why would an artist want to explain to someone these things if they aren't grasping on to it in the first place? Now I'm thinking that there is something wrong with an artist that tries to explain the work.
3. For myself, I want to be more honest in my work. If I decide to talk about it, then I want to be able be as honest as possible with my explanation. If my art means nothing, then say so. If I made a mistake and it came out right, never take credit and say it was purposeful (tho, I don't remember ever doing that anyways)... but I have felt proud of mistakes and I think pride should be dropped as well. This leads me to wonder, like I did before, why then am I communicating something through art if I'm able to communicate it through words? Are there are things that are better communicated with art than with words? In that, there seems to be a solution of sorts. Moods, ambience, abstractions...the way blue makes me feel. If I paint a huge canvass with different shades of blue...let's say an abstract painting of only blue, with no real forms within the painting. What could I say about it? If I were honest to myself with the painting and understood what it was that I'm feeling...I can't explain to anyone the exact feelings...I could tell them though that I like the way these different shades go together, that they make me feel calm, maybe that they remind me of the ocean, but in the end, the most honest answer is just that I like blue. I can explain what I am doing with the painting, but I did not communicate the meaning of the painting through language...nor did I try.
Well that feels good! Just another step closer to understanding why the hell I'm alive for. Thanks -anonymous.
posted by Michael | 1:58 PM
2 Comments:
You have a good argument, Michael, but not as strong as I expected you to have. You started your responses with painters such as Rothko, Twombly and Pollock, correct? Now look at these names and think about what you said. Do you really thing that they are not conveying a message through they're art, Why can it not be a epic story of a war or of a true love; it abstract, it can be anything you or the artist perceive it to be. Jackson Pollock was an alcoholic and was depressed do you think that those emotions are not incorporated into his art? Look at the painting that you displayed for Cy Twombly, titled the Four Season: Summer, do you think that the title itself is not representational of the painting, do you think that it cant tell a story, a meaning, an emotion? For Mark Rothko, can you look at "The Omen of the Eagle" and say it doesn't have a meaning, truly? I am very glad you were able to correct your thoughts through what I said, [where I become oxymoronic... I thought about that a little when I wrote it. I thought it would seem dumb for them to go through the trouble of being able to verbally communicate what they are saying with a piece of art...because if they were able to do that, then why is there art in the first place]. I agree with your statement of art as a universal language, a person is able to display an emotion in such a way that not only can he understand, not only can the ones around him understand but every capable person in the world can understand, this factor I find so beautiful about art. The second point you made I might not so easily agree upon. An artist may create the art for himself but not solely for himself. Being a musician do you create your music just for yourself, or do you create it for the purpose of being heard, for the purpose of getting your emotion across to others. A reason a painter paints is to display his emotion, a message, a thought, and idea to displace something. Do you Michelangelo design the Sistine Chapel only for himself; do you think Leonardo painted a self-portrait for only himself? This statement hurt me the most, [If my art means nothing, then say so.] no art, no matter what it is, means nothing, if it does not have a clear purpose the message maybe hidden in an abstract setting, if it does not have a historical purpose it make be an emotional one, if it has no emotional purpose maybe the reason that it was created is for the reason of creation. The meaning of art cannot allow a piece to have no meaning, it simply cannot be. [If I were honest to myself with the painting and understood what it was that I'm feeling...I can't explain to anyone the exact feelings...] is that not the reason that you would be painting the shades to try to explain WHAT they made you felt, because you cant explain in words you did it in a painting, as you said YOU did understand, and because you understood you were able to convey that message into the shades, just because you cant explain those exact meanings in words doesn't mean that you did not incorporate into the painting. I hope I was able to get my message across.
- anonymous
Wow...it seems very interesting discussion for you guys, Michael and anonymous. Ya have been enthusiastically and emotionally engaged. Have ya learned enough from each other through it? I'm wondering, "It's been for that long time. Have they ever got tired of debating?" Both of you have great passion for the art.But ya indeed just have different perspectives from each other. Why are ya making it so complicated and unenjoyable each other? Come on! Move on it!
Post a Comment
<< Home