OFF TOPIC
Mr. Dobry,
I have read your "Artist (sic) Statement",
pugsboxing.com
and with all due respect to you as a fellow painter, I wish to make several things clear to you, so there will be a better understanding between us.
Regarding artists, there are four distinct groups;
1. Artists who create Art.
2. Artists who do not create Art.
3. People who claim to be artists but are not.
4. People who are not artists and who occasionally create Art.
To understand this, one must first understand what Art is. Art is not what anyone decides it is. Art is the pinnacle of communication, the highest form of communication there is. This is a simple and accurate definition. If you disagree with this definition, you are incorrect.
There is, (unfortunately or fortunately), no strict dividing line here. Art is defined differently by different people at different times in different cultures. But the underlying truth remains, Art is the highest form of communication that exists.
Art, by definition then, has some implied qualities. First and foremost is intention. The basis of quality is good intention. Without good intention, our definition of quality in communication breaks down. To understand this, let's look at some gross examples. Anyone who has seen the cathedral at Chartres cannot but agree that it is a work of Art. We might have the occasional skeptic, who for political or religious reasons would argue that it is not Art, but I think you and I can agree that it is, in fact, a Great Work of Art. The intention can be felt, hundreds of years later. The same can be said of a Ming painting or a Benin carving. I'm not talking about subject matter or media here, I'm talking about high quality communication.
We could examine the example of a State Governor issuing a press release condemning a man to death. This is also communication, but no matter how well it is worded, no matter the quality of the paper it is printed on, no matter how good the sentences, we can agree that it is not Art.
At the bottom of the scale, we could take a madman who carves his initials on his victim. Communication? Yes. Art? No.
The differences start with intention. Many books about Art and artists have been written about the vagaries of intention and what it means to Art. That is not my purpose here, I only wish you to understand that the intention of the person who is attempting to create a work of Art is the primary factor in judging whether or not Art is actually created. Not the only factor, mind you, just the primary one.
Secondly, we could say that the work could be judged on the basis of execution; in other words, if it is executed poorly, the chances of it being a work of Art are reduced to that degree. Any impediment to superb communication (a lousy brush for a painter, inability to spell for a writer) could be considered a drawback to high quality execution. Again, execution is secondary to intention; great intention and average execution might result in a work of Art.
Thirdly, and perhaps the most vague of all, while possibly being the most important, is the effect created on the viewer by the work. You refer to Pablo Picasso; one might possibly have to look at his "Bull's Head" from the context of when he created it and the circumstances under which he was working to distinguish it from someone's random juxtaposition of a bicycle seat with some bicycle handle bars. Some might not agree with us that it is Art. The judgment is in the eye of the beholder, if you will pardon the expression.
We get into the area of "crafts" here. We could say for example that a particular wedding cake, which was finely crafted and made beautiful beyond the scope of ordinary wedding cakes, was a work of Art. And, depending upon the location and the time, we might be right. This is where, traditionally, the line is drawn: we do not currently look upon the baker and cake decorator as "traditional" artists. One could say, "That cake is a work of Art" and be judged wrong in concluding that the person who created it was an artist. These sorts of arguments about Art and artists are as old as written history, and probably older. Ancient Greeks probably did not consider an ordinary water vessel to be a work of Art, today, that same item could be considered Art. Is a finely crafted golf course a work of Art? By one definition, yes it is.
However, humans have a general agreement that the primary purpose of Art is simply to be Art, and the primary purpose of a cake is to be eaten. In the great scheme of things, these distinctions are rather boring to most artists, but of intense interest to Art critics. Factually, they are side issues in the area of intention.
An artist might be loosely defined, therefore, as one who through the use of specific intention to do good, and high quality execution, creates something which is agreed upon to approach the pinnacle of communication.
Your statement is telling;
I see no difference in the obsessive/compulsive behavoir (sic) of the ax-murderer burying bodies in the basement, or a guy like me spending hours & hours painting in the basement. The only difference is how this obsessive/compulsive behavoir (sic) manifests. For me it manifests as Art!
You have made a serious mistake. You have somehow mixed psychosis with Art. You are not the first person to do this, and I'm sure you will not be the last.
But I must object to your implications regarding artists.
An ax-murderer is evil, Mr. Dobry.
Art is good.
What you are missing is the intention. The intention of an ax-murderer is evil. He is insane. To equate Art with insanity is a mistake. You could say the insane person uses paint and canvas as therapy, just as the insane person might use clay or boogers as therapy. That's called craft. If Art results, it is in spite of the insanity, not because of it. The final judgment can only be made when others agree about the quality of the work. In other words, the artist makes something, but it requires at least one other person to agree that it is Art. That's the nature of communication. It's also the nature of insanity, an insane person has a harder than normal time communicating.
If I spoke to you the most beautiful poem ever written, in Italian, and you don't speak Italian, then it is not Art. It is gibberish.
There is no "artistic" way to murder someone. You are, at best, talking about a craft. Could there be an exception? I suppose there could; if an artist killed an evil person in a creative way, he might argue it was Art, but we're really stretching the point.
Artists are not insane, Mr. Dobry. Art is not "therapy". Artists are sane, and their Art is the highest form of communication imaginable. The intention of the artist is good, not evil. It takes a sane person with a good understanding of his craft and a good understanding of communication to even approach what we call Art. It takes a sane genius to make a Great Work of Art. That is the truth. A insane musician who makes a rock song about killing cops can call it Art and get away with it. He can claim his inspiration was Beethoven; he can claim whatever he wants. He's not an Artist, he is an insane liar. His intention is bad. It is not Art, it is mental masturbation. Insane people don't create Art, they jack off to pass the time.
So, if you please, have a modicum of respect for me and the other people on this planet who actually create Art. We need more Artists, and your crazy ideas about Artists could hinder some person from picking up a paintbrush.
Please don't compare yourself to Picasso, it is incredibly annoying. Picasso was an artist.
I'm not a boxer. You would laugh at me if I claimed I were, because you know what it takes to be one. I say this with respect to you as a painter: you may be a lot of things, but artist is not one of them. Not yet.
You may be a craftsman in at least one field, and you are a painter. But until you understand the basics, until you have a vague understanding of what quality is, and until you understand that there might possibly be some slight difference between the intention to chop someone up with an ax and the intention to have someone look at what you created and feel a kind of happiness at the sublime and creative way you have communicated your thought and good intention to his very soul, you do not have the right to call yourself an artist.
That right has to be earned.
|
