All attempts to frame or talk about art are fraught with difficulties. Assumptions, categorizations, and generalizations are the only modes by which a meaningful conversation can take place about such a subjective topic.
Art is anything artificial or anything created by an intelligent being. It can be music, movies, paintings, graphics, architecture, computer programming, or anything created.
Some art is beautiful to some people and meaningless to others. Many people agree that some art, such as that of the Renaissance painters, is certainly good while other art is not. Many people do not appreciate modern or abstract art while even more seem to dislike conceptual art. While I find much conceptual art to lack surface beauty, it can certainly provoke thought.
There can be beauty in thought. And, I find abstract art to be more capable of capturing emotion and beauty than any other form but this is only my personal opinion and arguing about what particular art is good is like arguing about what particular color is best.
The less an artist puts any original effort into a work, often, the less it is appreciated. This is why artists who put their names on work that was done mostly or completely by others, will always be at risk of a fall from popularity.
While it may be interesting to display one's toilet (or even a perfect, hand-made sculpture of a toilet) on a podium and put an exorbitent price tag on it, there is something more impressive about the thought and personal touch of artists who invent something that moves us to any number of emotions. Perhaps the statue of a toilet is actually very good precisely because it causes us to think about art and what it is.
Art can disturb us or make us feel elated. Art can be scary and horrible or soft and peaceful. It is not so much in which direction that it moves us, it is often how much it moves us. What is moving art to one person or culture may not even be recognizable to another.
Although it is certainly not necessary that it is so, Nietzsche points out in The Birth of Tragedy the relationship good art has to the balancing of the subjective and objective forces that both move the artist and those that observe the resultant artwork.
It is no surprise that many people have become jaded with modern art because it often seems that the artist and not the art is what determines what is good. If the artist is famous and flamboyant, then, the art is good? This is not to say that a wonderful artist can not also be famous and flamboyant but only that fame and flamboyance are neither necessary nor sufficient for an artist's work to be worthy of appreciation.
If anyone asks me what the point of any writing or painting or philosophy is, then I say the very creative process and results are ends in themselves. In my art, I am not trying to do anything other than paint. In my philosophy, I am not trying to do anything other than write my thoughts about the world. Musicians need not have an end to play or write music.
Dancers need not be employed as such for there to a purpose to their dancing. An actor who acts well but is unknown is more successful than a wealthy actor who acts badly. Success is in the quality of the creation not in what such creation yeilds or intends.
All material gain from art is inconsequential (except to the degree that it allows the artist more freedom, time, and material to create with) and, if not handled wisely, can and often does interfere with the impetus and drive to create. A true artist, in any sense of the word, cares nothing for the circumstances that life presents as benefits or detractions from the creation of art.
A true artist can paint and make millions or paint in solitude and destitution. It is the love that drives a true artist, not the love of gain in self or material. The true philosopher does philosophy because they have no choice but to express their thoughts, whether they ever be written on paper or just imagined or explained to friends.
The best mathematicians sit thinking alone, winning fields medals in Russia, and wanting nothing to do with the academic world. The best philosopher in the world probably writes nothing or his or her books are unread or misunderstood.
The best musician in the world is probably undiscovered and may never write anything or perform anything publically. The best painters in the world are probably poor and unknown and have stockpiled their work.
The best authors in the world sit struggling and unrecognized and doubtful of themselves. The best scientists in the world sit unknown and without modes of interjection into the academic morass.
The best political thoughts sit on dusty shelves and await a time when humanity will open up to new possibilities for human expression and education.
None of this is to say that on some occasions, these best artists are not discovered. Sometimes it can even happen quite early in their careers, but almost always, the best art is hidden, for a time, behind the veil of what is considered "good" at the present moment.
Some of the greatest art, to be sure, is discovered years after artists deaths and, perhaps, we can imagine, sometimes it is never discovered at all and they are forgotten.
|
|
|
But, the very act of creation is a means and ends in itself and no one need ever see any art for it to have been creatively worthwhile. It is wonderful when good art is shared with the world because it enriches our lives and gives us the possibility for love of art.
The best of all art is often the least known and it should be our goal to expose it and them who make it though many good artists care nothing of such exposure. Money and fame are absolutely last for the best artists and for wise people who want to navigate the world without the restrictions of attention and fame. Fame is a trap and why anyone would want to be famous, save for the possibilities of extending their artistic creative potential, is perplexing.
I see no reason why we would not want to be wealthy, but when desire for wealth trumps one's love of creation and the desire begins to infect the creation, we end up with art that we certainly could do without.
Art that is presented to us as what we should like because we are told so is pervasive. Generic art is all around us and it stinks of dollar signs and negative aesthetic value. Thomas Kinkaide, Britney Spears, and half of the movies that are made in America come to mind.
While visiting various museums of modern art, one may stumble across the odd blank canvas that may or may not have a small spec of paint on it somewhere and on which the artist named by the piece never even lifted a finger to put that smudge or lack thereof on the canvas herself or himself.
This is the problem with much minimalist or conceptual art in that the product itself is far less important than the name next to it. If one looks at much of modern art, beauty and color are pretty much dead. Color and form and aesthetic pleasure is cliche', it's been done before.
My opinion is that such compositions, whether they be expressionist, impressionist, colorist, surrealist, cubist, minimalist, etc. should all adhere to some basic tenets of time put into a piece itself by the artist who claims it and there should be some effort towards affecting the viewer in a non-nihilistic sense.
Not that nihilism is always bad as can be seen from some vantage points where a blissful peace can come from nihilism as is proposed by A.N.U.S. (The American Nihiliist Underground Society whose website is here).
Perhaps my tastes in art or of what is good are dated. I do like extremely abstract work and if abstract expressionism goes out of style, then so too has all chances for art, in my opinion. If I had to name some of my current influences and favorite artists, be they masters of times past or blossoming young artists, then the following list would scratch the surface:
Marc Chagal, Wassily Kandinsky, Henri Matisse, early Salvador Dali, Vincent Van Gogh, Caravaggio, early Jackson Pollock, Hovsep Pushman, George Innes, Michaelangelo, Georgia O'Keeffe, Mark Rothko, Rich Frederick (RLF), Trinity Rivard, Giorgio Tuscani, Erik Hesson, Maida Millan, Mark T. McGee, Chris Radcliffe, Heiden Hippert, Ahmad Elias, and Jury Makeev.
I have an integrated website here for an overview of my paintings.
Art is a secondary topic, under the primary topic of aesthetics. Categories under art include:
______________________________________________________________________________________________
There is a page on movies and a page on music, highlighting some of my favorite works in each category and discussing the benefits and possibilities inherent in each form. Movies can incoporate music while music can incorporate moving images in the form of accompanying video. There is a lot of room for overlap.
