Preamble to Celia Walden's article in the Telegraph

I am not convinced that the "oil in oil paintings " question was not part of this so-called protest... Ignorance is in in our times. Getting attention? Oh, absolutely!!! That too! Narcissism on top of ignorance is also VERY in.

Look at me, look at me, look at me being a bad boy or girl! No responsibility, no consequences. Except this time there were... Celia Walden of the Telegraph said it way more beautifully and coherently than I did on my Facebook page. Her article is definitely worth the read to actually understand the "un-understandable".

Activism today is much more about ego and stirring up the mud at the bottom of the pond than clarifying statements or encouraging change. It has nothing to do with anything other than: I, Me, Moi... 

Telegraph Article: (copy paste address online) 

​https://www.yahoo.com/news/soup-throwing-protests-only-happen-180000904.html
​
​

"Social Media As reality

Maybe I'm simply a slow learner, or possibly just a fast forgetter... Sometimes I feel like an old church bell that hasn't been "gonged" by its clapper in a long time.... But, all it takes is about 15 minutes max  to discover that Facebook, LinkedIn and other social media are nothing more than virtual reflections of the real world we live in...  

But is it just me?

I spend more than half my life observing. It's not only a bad habit, it's a tool of my painting and writing trades. That being said, over time I’ve been struck by the inanity of “we the people” devolving... It sounds silly, but... in this first quarter of the 21st century, I began noticing  how intensely connected we are with our dogs and other pets - and how disconnected we are with others within our own species. 

We are so into touching and intensely displaying affection for our four-legged paramours that it has become second to none, as connection-expressions go. We kiss their faces, their paws, their heads. We fondle their furry selves from head to toe,  while they in turn, lick us into submission with the same tongue they use for other things in need of being licked... We hug and coo and talk to them with the deepest of expressed affection - and hold them close... so close..... we wish they could just woof or mew at least once: "thank you, Mommy, thank you Daddy".

At heart, we treat them as the most precious gift we have ever been "owed"............. 

But What's your problem Poulin!!!...? For gawd's sakes! Be real! That's what we do when we encounter those we love the most.... our pets...  those who, first and foremost, do for us what others don't:  i.e.: "meet our needs"....

(So why am I not upset with myself for this cynicism?) Hmmm. Sometimes, I hate being an observer..... But I'd rather be that than a victimless victim.   

Affection's odd-man out...

As pets, children are another matter... (Did I just say that?) In this new and improved era... our connections with them are opposite to those we have with animals. With offspring we prefer being "odd-couple equal" rather than mentor and mentee. We seem to have a deep seeded need  to be pretend chums rather than the adult guides to independence seeking hero worshippers. And yet, oddly again, with our children, having said what I said above, we seem to be more "acceptably" socially and psychologically aggressive... For some time now. we have gone from caressing and hugging to "whacking" our children, "hitting" them with “acceptable” slaps we euphemistically call "high fives". We reach out to our offspring, from toddlerhood onwards with "fists" lifted to “gently” fist-bump. Does the clenched hand not show our hidden agenda?...   

We bump them with our buttocks and hips and create multiple complex incomprehensible finger and hand play side-shows of pseudo warmth... all at a measured physical distance..... which is rather "sickly" entertaining. We've evolved (?) from human hugs, warmly embracing and holding hands - which, in our contemporary mind set, now eerily imply perversion rather than security, loving care or protectiveness...

It's become OK for dogs and cats, I guess. But, "yewwww!" For kids?...

Now, it’s true that not only are we this “cold” with our own. We do  these “more acceptable ways of connecting” with other children and adults too - as if our children, must learn to accept being no more than just "another live thing" to reach out to when need be”. Basically, it's up to our children to realise that they are no more to us than the kid next door. 

Now, I may be wrong... But are we increasingly keeping our children at a distance simply because our connection with them is more of an “obligatory" relationship thing; where our kids are increasingly and simply seen to be temporary objects of responsibility? Ironically our era has chosen to make "our" ego, "our" self more important than our reaching out to the equally recognizable others around us. Are we easing ourselves away to make the goal of eventual total disconnection easier?

Has victimhood and offense replaced empathy, and affection and connection as feelable feelings?

Adults it seems have suddenly rediscovered their inner child and... he is sorely wanting... He feels threatened by any other who might give off vibes of supplanting his uber importance, or nurtured narcissism gone wild. And as that needy child, we find abnormal anything which would threaten our stand, our "self-esteem", our greatness above all others, our need for  exaggerated recognition by others over self-respect. Ironically, this sounds more and more like self-love and less and less as the empathic connective gift of ourselves to others - and the same from others in return. 

Affection, if there be any in our times, seems to have taken on the colours of self-soothing, of self-salving and of meeting our own personal needs or, as we expect it now.... touching as simply sexual rather than sensually necessary to grow into an eventual sense of completeness. 

I ask because even our phones and tablets get more touching and cuddling  and holding and hugging than our children do. We even take all the time in the world to “talk” to our phones... While our children get a sharp: "Stop it! Can't you see I'm busy with my "sweet" Phonie (!) here?" 

Interesting how human connection as a tool of growing, a tool of security and loyalty and trust with our children is universally becoming less and less intimate and more and more... as having less and less to do with deep affection, love, concern, joy, respect and awe... I get the feeling, feeling is ebbing away as a ..... feeling.  

Summation

I write this not as a cynical reflection on our times but as a contemplation on the worrying trend of anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation being “normalized” in age groups we once described as innocent, sweet and dependent on our love...... dependent on their healthy futures being moulded by the watchfulness of caring adults who.... during their growing years of this beginning 21st century, seem to exist less and less in the present and more and more in the safe bosom of the virtual.

All this to say, we have abandoned our children and they know it. We don't yet.... We're too much into our "selves" to notice. 

Apples and oranges...

Ah, yes....Another populist meme erroneously comparing apples and oranges... Instead of saying that individuals who paint, sculpt, draw, dance, create poetry, compose,  etc. "are not like athletes" (i.e. : those who skate, run, jump, pass & catch footballs or kick soccer balls, etc.), it infers that "artists" (a generic term for those who "are something") and "athletes" ( a generic term for those who "do something") are the same for comparison’s sake. So what’s the hitch? 

The moniker : “athlete” implies “someone who mentally and physically does something" whereas the designation of “artist” describes “the beingness and specialness of someone”, regardless of whether they do something or not.

For all intents and purposes, in our times, artist is a title and a status moniker. Athlete implies action and accomplishment. Rather than being a legitimately awarded title or proof of credentials, “artist” is more often than not a contemporary self anointing which elevates anyone and everyone who ascribes to "being one” as being "more" (or better?) than those who are not. 

Hmmmmmmm. I guess both titles have have something to do with “competing.....”  

Sport is objective... Craft is subjective...

Compiling error upon error, the author of this meme introduces the concept of "there being no right way or wrong way in the arts......” (Sigh)... To be a painter, writer, dancer, etc. takes skill, and skills take time and effort to acquire. They are not a given. And there are right and wrong ways to utilize those skills to execute a crafted object - to compose, to combine the various elements of any art form we practice. Just as there are rules and practices required to achieve well in sports, medicine, architecture, accounting or any other field of endeavour purporting to have a professional component attached to it. There are rules in the world of the arts. To say there are none is an amateurish promotion of inferiority as a style.

I doubt very much that a poet, painter or dancer, (who knows nothing of the grammatical imperatives of their art form language will ever achieve even a modicum of the greatness in communicating through their work - or achieve the true meaning of being an “artist” - i.e. : be perceived universally as excellent at both their craft and expression.

In essence, the craft of artwork making is as objective as any sport analogy applied to it. Every activity, if it has at its heart the search for excellence in execution, needs an objective foundation upon which to build the possibility of  free expression which, naturally, is the subjective component which cannot be at its best unless it respects the objective foundational underpinnings allowing for the construction of the "thing" we make - the artwork.

Add to this, that within a single paragraph, the statement that artists should create "to connect with people who "need us".... Well, creators of imagery are not there as therapists for a damaged soul. We create to express and share what WE have encountered, felt, mused on, discovered, wondered and thought about. To create in the arts (if it is an honest endeavour) - covers the whole gamut of expressions - be they sad, horrific, beautiful, endearing, wondrous and even ugly. No matter the the subject matter, if beautifully rendered it has the possibility of being extraordinary. The arts speak to THE truth and falsehoods around us. They are an equal opportunity search for excellence in communication about what is real and what is not. 

Ours, in the arts,  is a personal adventure in which, through a diligent learning of our art form parameters, we show the world what moves and encourages or disturbs us and possibly might touch them via its expression. And in turn, the viewer may begin to analyse their own perspective  of the image speaking to them.  

It's up to viewers of our “stuff” to find it compelling, or not. If the genie of enigma emerges from what we do, it will reach out and move others. That’s when we will have achieved our goal. But if we didn't, we have a choice... We can either quit or move on to the next step : i.e.: get better at what we “do” in the sharing of what we sense and feel about the world around us.  

In its populist mode of expression, this meme highlights a laissez-faire attitude where discipline and apprenticeship are pooh-poohed. Rather than guide those who “wish to become the best they can be” - (i.e. : become excellent) it encourages an amateurish “what the hey! I’m an arteest because I say so and what I do is art (i.e.: in its lesser context ” affectation”. 

“Take the pressure off” it says. To such drivel I respond with a resounding : NO!!! Facing the pressure and all the challenges is what artwork making is all about! Being an artist is not having fun in an arts and crafts easter-bunny card design sort of way. Artwork making has a greater depth of meaning than a permissive  “I need to be seen to be an artist” requirement. Creating is not a fool’s or a wimp’s game. It’s tough. It’s work. 

As for “focus on your unique brand of magic”. That’s horse radish! Having our own “look”, or signature in the arts, i.e. : that which distinguishes us as "different", as magic, depends on years of practice.  Dali (and I paraphrase) rightfully put it this way: Never look or work to create your own style. (signature). As with a written autograph, style cannot be created. It simply "appears"as it is. It “happens” despite us, on its own and when we least expect it. But we definitely know we have one when "others" see it mesmerizing difference.  

In the end, it’s sad that the once revered title of artist, that the work that we do, that the wonders of creativity at its best have all been so watered down to mean nothing more than some kind of status thing; a kid’s self-esteem participation award..... Real creating is so much more than that.

I responded with the following "essay":
Doing this for/to a student - hugging, has been for a long time now perceived as "bad", not professional or correct.... in the teaching or care realms - not kosher, but iffy, "questionable" and even frightening...

As humans, today, this is “where we are at". Disconnected, cold and fearful, we question all closeness behaviour.

It's one of the subliminal reason's why many teachers quit. Their lot is fraught with discouragement, an impossibility to offer what we crave to give: i.e.: encouragement. There is now so little human in the concept of humanity, and less and less tangible connection in classrooms today...

Basically, academic environments are nothing more than mirror reflections of the world beyond their walls - walls which separate us from each other, from those very individuals who deeply need us to care because there isn’t much out there that says they are worth anything. And so, they get angrier and increasingly violent.

Hugs? That normal human reaction to connection since the beginning of time is now perceived to be an embarrassment, and worse... Ironically, we have replaced this euphemistically archaic practice with aggressive "whacks!" called "high fives", watered down symbols of attack called "fist-bumps" and illusions of pretend closeness resembling more "warfare of the hearts and minds" than gifts of sharing. But then, what’s the problem? Pretense at closeness through symbolic gestures of spontaneous pseudo “touching” are better than nothing, aren't they? They certainly take less time - that thing we too often waste in our haste to get somewhere... “wherever that is”...

Yes, a real hug, a "holding close", takes time... A minute? Hell! To a child, after overcoming the shock, a minute would be like winning the lottery - so unreal! That’s how rare hugs of that wondrousness are today. But then, time is always the main factor in contemporary life... “wasting it”, that is - even for a short period, such waste is considered sacrilegious...
In fact, in our era, holding a child close; feeling the tension melt away and the rise of confidence fill the void is almost a lost art. To hold an adolescent in this way has become, for both adults and teens involved, "discomfortable"; a reminiscence of being babied. It’s just not common in our times to be close to those we say we love or care about. We have emojis for that, don't we?

“Real” hugs? Well, their perceived as “odd” - clingy, if not worse.... Strong people don’t hug. Weak ones do... They make us feel “imprisoned”, like vulnerable victims of something.... Hugs imply castration via the most abused word in our era: “safety” which implies that the one receiving requires protection rather than encouragement. We’ve lost track of the fact that such an honest closeness actually refuels and strengthens the resolve of a receiver to once again strive to truly be free and fly. We all need such hugs as we evolve throughout our lives. They remind us of how precious connection is, especially in a world which fears it, denies it and even loathes it.

When was it, that such a gift to children we are entrusted with, that caring beyond simply saying it, became a sin - simply because we now see evil in everything, even goodness?

As parents and teachers, we increasingly see and encounter our kids angry today - really angry. And we don’t get it... We control their thoughts and actions into their 20s and 30s. And we don’t get it. We rage at schools and teachers as if the world’s inequities are their fault rather than praise them for doing the best they can to help "our" children and teens survive the mess we are all in and which they are inheriting... and still, we don’t get it!

The world is suffering greatly from the damages done to our eco-systems and the destructions we do to ourselves through incessant wars and turmoil. Teens, because of it all, feel encased in an antiquated rigidity and formality and pain and anxiety and depression. Why? Our systems define them as lost causes unless they abandon their dreams and no longer submissively sit passive as we “manipulate their lives”. And fearfully, for them, there is no longer anyone who dares hug those pains away without being accused of something else.

For decades now, teachers have been "ordered" to view their wards as “distant” numbers and ourselves as cold conveyors of a tomorrow devoid of hope.

When did the once revered profession of teaching become a passionless passion, now perceived as nothing more than a babysitting service for each stage of the lives of “our” children we promised we would unquestionably love and care for? Since our entry into virtual realities, it has become easier and easier to lose ever more traction in the "real" realties of life where our ego-systems have increasingly begun deteriorating. And despite this devolution in the process of human connection awareness experienced by teachers during 5 to 6 hours of everyday, even on weekends teachers just can’t let go of the pains they encounter - that of the children and teens who cry alone a rage that rises from deep down within them and which increasingly gets aggressively expressed in school.

Why is it, therefore, that they are no longer worth just one minute of our time? All they want from us is a warm feeling of connectivity flowing through their veins, a show of trust and encouragement to give them the strength to once again attempt to tackle, to offset the fears that the world, they are slated to become a part of, imposes upon them. All children and teens, today, feel that they are not worthy to take their place in this world as care givers of tomorrow. They definitely need a hug. And if teachers can't give it to them, who in the hell will?

​They're certainly not getting it from anywhere else.

 

Our 21st century educational system, despite and supported by a technological pretense at modernization, basically remains a 19th century preparatory ground for assembly line work mindsets. The goal is to dumb down and render submissive the creative within us. That's why we fight so intensely to have our individuality recognized in a society that now desperately needs us to be collectively focused... 

Questions 1 and 2: 

 Do I try to sell collectors "my art"?

No. Mainly because I don't sell "art". I sell artworks which may or may not be eligible to hold within them the mystery that is "art". 

Do I give them (consumers) enough information that they want to own the piece? 

I would feel like a shit if I ever discovered that at any time during the past 50 + years of my career one of my collectors had bought an artwork of mine because I had "led him/her into doing so".

Buyers of my artworks CHOOSE to buy my work. They tell me they want it. I don't manipulate the conversation to get them to "own"' anything! Why should I? 

In our times, we are too much like commodity salesmen trying to get rid of old stock. Do I try to sell my work? Other than display it and give the general parameters of title, dimensions and medium, I tend to shut up and stay away from the whole promotion and marketing formats of the day.

Too often, we appear to be more hyped up on being seen to be artists than we are at presenting thought-filled and deep meanderings into the sensual world of our artwork making. Basically, today, we are  become more distractions than lures into the visual language world we are engaged in. We often sound more like shills and hucksters. 

I don't give out information  focused on getting someone to "own a piece". (!!!) Whether buyers fit one or the other of consumer, investor or collector is not the point. I've sketched or painted or sculpted whatever I have and now I display it. I've done my bit. And though I will warmly welcome and speak with a visitor to one of my displays, I generally prefer to offer them free reign as to observation, appreciation (or not) and even interpretation. This is their moment to reach out and be moved (or not) by the work I have created. It's as simple as that.  Sometimes they buy. Sometimes they don't. But in the end, they must make that choice and not me (or my pushing them to do so). 

Oddly, communication freedom is what the commercial side of the visual arts is about since, at the core, it is a sensual, not a commodity-based exercise. 

Artwork, ready to leave a studio to be exhibited, to stand on its own to speak, must be "freed up" to do so, this - despite contemporary notions which deem it necessary in our times to "prepare" audiences for the upcoming revelations of our work............................................. (!!!) Such a notion says 2 things to me: 

1- We don’t trust our potential clients to be smart enough to “get” our stuff, and.... 
2- We don’t trust the quality of our work.
​
So where lies the real problem?

For all intents and purposes, artworks can legitimately be coddled during the extensive developmental stages within a studio. But once completed, and existing outside the atelier environment, created objects must be weaned - must become independent of our overprotective attentions. Why so? At this stage of the game, the lasting value of an artwork no longer depends on excessive pampering by its creator.  Rather, it must gamble on the attentions, or lack thereof, of viewers being open to an artwork’s ability to communicate and the viewer's ability to connect.

Artworks are like children. They must eventually grow up and learn to fly on their own, without parental interference. So should our studio progeny. Despite contemporary practices, If I have to "sell" the virtues of my created spawn, what I actually end up doing is neutering it from the get-go. I am telling the world that I am not sure that my work can stand on its own... And the more intense I sound on the subject the more desperate I appear to be and the weaker my work seems. 

Essentially, artworks, have an innate right to exist independently of us in order for the art "within the artwork” to appear and to have its say... (again, oftentimes we forget that art is not necessarily in all or even anything we create. If we are lucky it occasionally does thrill a viewer by its presence.    

Where am I going with all of this?

Creating is a 3 fold experiment in processing. The first element involves a creator who generally retires from the fray in order to muse within a studio environment - this to give birth to a concrete representation of a concept, a thought, an observation, a feeling whose forever quest is to eventually be conveyed and shared with others (unless the creation process is a therapeutic one).

The second step in the process of transmitting artwork to an audience involves a right of passage, or the debutante ball aspect of the coming out of an artwork. This is not a new concept, whether this relates to individuals or individual artworks. 

In ancient Greece, there were “symposia” - banquets to honour the transition of a boy to manhood. A similar event, called a “convivium”, was held in ancient Rome to recognize a young man’s coming of age. Many other cultures, over time, have had similar happenings, some religious some cultural, which opened the doors to adulthood for the all too ready young. 

In the 18th and 19th centuries, debutante balls were common in Europe. Not to be left behind, the West had its own “Promenades” - soon to be known as “proms” - as first highlighted in the Harvard Crimson newspaper in 1879.  

All such events are comparable to the final stage of presentation, display and introduction of our artworks to the world. As newly minted adult creations, the first responsibility of these recently “mature” artworks, (as independent “beings”), is to prove themselves worthy of the wider worlds recognition, acceptance and/or rejection of their claim to excellence. 

The third and final element in this sharing experience is the very fact that an artwork must be allowed its own space to breathe within a communication environment. From the first moment of its presentation and display before the eyes of the world, an artwork must be free to express itself - and this through an excellence of rendition put forth by the quality of compositional elements “playing nicely together”. 

So, is my artwork art?

All in all, and despite our intentions, talents and expertise as creators, the decision that “art” actually resides within a specific creation is the purview of a viewer, not ours. Obviously, artworks are things, buyable, tradable objects. Art is not a thing. it is a mystery which is only seen (felt) through the eyes and heart of a viewer, open to receiving the enigmatic experience of “soul” within an artwork. It is that which elicits awe and "unbelievability" from viewers.  

Essentially, every artwork made, manufactured, sketched, painted, sculpted, composed or written has been created  with one intent and one intent only in mind of its maker: to give the constructed end product a "life" - its own life. And so, why would anyone considering themselves to be an artist ever subscribe to the need to  hawk their wares through opaque artist’s statements and sales pitches that sound and feel more like door to door salesmen spiels? 

Is it that our contemporary tactics fit the times? 

Yes. A good example of this is that parents today do not shy away from showing up at colleges to give hell to profs who don’t give their 23 year old babies an A+ in whatever. That’s what’s called a bastardization of upbringing. Do we practice this type of gobbledygook reality in the visual arts? Sadly, yes. More often than not the arts (especially the visual arts) reflect the era in which we live. Just read some of the artist statements available on line which describe the "non-sense" we throw out as sophisticated parlance which, in effect, seem to  tell our potential collectors that we don't see them as bright enough to understand our worldly-wise work. Is this true? Possibly not. But it sure sounds like we’re going in that direction... 

So the answer to the title question  is?...

Once an artwork is completed and, by our own admission, ready to stand on its own, we’ve only got 5 simple things to do to show our trust in both our latest all grown up hatchlings and our client base:

We should...

1) Take 2 steps back from the work once it is completed,
2) smile proudly,
3) let the work speak for itself,
4) shut the hell up... and,
​5) for god's sake, let the viewer discover the art (soul) emanating from the depths of our artwork. If they don't/can't, we'll know soon enough that this particular artwork will at least make a good paint-over canvas for a future kick at the can.    

​Once an artwork is completed we should take a lesson from greater artists than ourselves. The unwritten rule of thumb is to take 2 steps back and speak no more. IF our artworks are good enough to show, they are good enough to do their own speaking - which is their job, not ours.

I know that in our era we live in over-protectiveness of children - and in so doing we ruin their ability to stand on their own. The same applies to painting, drawing and sculpting. By making, creating, molding and crafting things we give these objects "life". Why, then, do we snuff it out in order to provide our audiences with info that aggrandizes us rather than our work. How is anyone supposed to come upon the "art" that purportedly resides within our work if we constantly grandstand and interfere with their search to be reached out to, touched and moved?

Why render artwork creating academic; so-called logical, it demeans the subjective and the sensuous that should be oozing from our craft?

Are we, in our time, in such need of attention and praise? I would rather people gush over my work than me. Ask 100 people who painted the Mona Lisa and few would be able to tell you. And THAT IS OK!!! It's Mona who counts. Leonardo the painter comes second, if not last. And we are in a field where so do we. If we can't accept that, we will be nothing but mediocre "artists".

At 14 when I started selling artworks, I thought I was the be all and end all... How wrong I was. Nobody cared about me. It is not me they hang on their walls. The art within the artwork is not the money I made.

By the time I was 30 I knew better and, to this day, I don't even call myself an "artist". What arrogance that is! (Let the adoring crowds do that! It's their job... not ours.)

As for artists' statements... They're better left unsaid.   

So....... Everyone’s an artist? Interesting conjecture. 

I prefer the contention that everyone is born creative, since creativity is a necessary component of human basic survival  (and has been since the beginning of time). But, as not all are born into an environment which encourages an equal measure of creative élan, some of us inadvertently end up  having less  capacity to survive the trials and tribulations of life than others. (But note... If we are one of the lucky ones, that does not make us better. It simply makes us more fortunate.) 
​
In consideration of the foregoing, I assume that, as not all of us are mechanically or mathematically privileged, it goes without saying that not all of us are necessarily and naturally "artistically creative" - at least not to a degree which merits the “traditional” title and status of "artist". Though this title once had stature, its contemporary prestige rating has definitely become a faded pastiche of its original self.  So why continue to hold it up to such adulation?
Let me man-splain here...

Today, if I draw, paint, sculpt, (i.e.: make things called artworks), this makes me (in fact, if not in aspiration) a drawer, a painter, a sculptor. It makes me what I “do”,  not who I suddenly feel the need to call myself. Why? Because the visual arts, as a contemporary libertarian exercise, is for the most part not professional in nature nor should it therefore be in recognition. For all intents and purposes, in contemporary individualistic societies, the quality of self-expression rarely rises above a generic level of avocation - though in capitalistic collectives, the activities may come with benefits. So... why is anointing myself an “artist” still such a contemporary craving?

Well. The irony of it reveals itself when we once again look back to the days of yore. Being an artist, in the past,  meant “being seen to have achieved a level of expertise and excellence beyond the norm”. It meant we were better (at what we did), more than (as in: we gave more to our viewer), and worth it (at least re the attention of viewers and especially buyers.) 
​
Why this contention?

In years prior to the 18th and 19th centuries, visual artists were generally known as once-apprenticed  craftsmen, journeymen, expert  labourers  in a specific field. But once their skill sets had been acquired and their individual unique talents discovered as more than average, the status of an individual worker changed. With their work now sought after, they were crowned with the title “artist”.  

Today is another matter. That mesmerizing title and its stature of specialness, of difference born of excellent rendering, still lures us in but for different purposes............we wish it not for the same reasons as in the past but for reasons our times dictate. Wearing a title, even one that has faded into an oblivion of non-sense, still gives us a feeling of having achieved in a time when achievement is hardly recognized. Anointing ourselves with it "appears" to make us different and special and “better” in a time when being like everybody else seems depressing... And so, the irony remains.... the last vestiges of status oddly prevail in a field which has long gone rogue and which now demands its due as entitled creatives who have not abandoned the myth that they were born “more than” artistic.

In essence, in the past 2 centuries, the title of artist and its concomitant ally "art", though having lost most if not all of their luster as credible professional designations, have nonetheless oddly maintained a momentum as designates at a time when excellence has faded even more than our artwork production still purports to have the capacity to affect our souls. 

In this respect, since excellence in the visual arts is no longer a requisite but rather dependent on how it is defined and redefined, all that is left, it seems, is the title, status and the ease with which we call what we do a profession.  This, in turn, makes the visual arts a non-entity in the grand scheme of things professional, (at least where the collective as a whole is concerned).

The following is a related sidebar (as artwork production is concerned) and in relation to calling ourselves professionals....

I would not want to be treated by someone who says they are an endocrinologist but actually isn't....  Basically, endocrinology is a recognized and respected profession. (It is also against the law to say we are of this profession and call ourselves so if our affirmation is fraudulent and worse we actually practice it.) A law practice is much the same, as is engineering and teaching. These titles are acquired, earned. To keep them as ours demands a level of practice in a field which searches out excellence as its goal. The visual arts, as a populist activity, no longer has accredited parameters. Therefore, as a field, it has no more credibility than to simply be seen to be a "generic self-expression exercise". Why is this true?

Basically, today, “artist” has become a glamour title in an arena of "everyone is an artist and everything we do is art". 

In conclusion, therefore:

Wearing a title such as artist should be done with respect to its highest calling, In which case, we creatives have to recognize that we are nothing more than observers and recorders of what is, (in whatever style we prefer to render the message). We are neither god nor guru. And ours is not to preach but to share - even if our only task is to carry the message of the a caged canary in a mine shaft...  

Lastly, 

if we are honest, this end description must be acknowledged as the mandate of the arts we purport to be attaching ourselves to. Otherwise, like the too often undue wearing of the title artist, and the strutting of the status we invoke, our work would be best referred to as art therapy, its focus: creating for ourselves and its quest: making us feel better... 

Cheers!

These questions, were recently posted online all in one grouping. Quite interesting and multi-faceted; speaking to a lot of areas - each in need of clarification.  But before taking them all in, please allow me to, once again, spell out my position: 

Art vs artworks

I do not create  “art”. I make artworks. Art, in and of itself, is  an enigma, not a creatable thing. Artworks, on the other hand are manufactured, made, created  products or commodities. I therefore make things called artworks from which (maybe, sometimes) the enigma of "art" may emerge. 

​For me or for others...

In my books, there are 2 ways to "create artworks”: 

1) the first is therapeutically - i.e.: to make artworks which meet a creator’s own needs  and desires. Being a restorative exercise, it is generally called therapeutic artwork making or, in it’s most common misnomer parlance, art therapy. 

2) The other creative élan has a  more universal visual language connotation. - one which speaks to creativity as a channel, a connection with others. In this context, artwork is a statement made, a conversation, a “something” to "put out there". That’s what we “usually” define art as. And if the product of our mind and heart, (an artwork) is “made” to be exhibited, to be seen - or to, at times, be put up for sale in a gallery or auction, etc., the necessary connection with others is a given. 

That being said, when connection is a sought after conclusion to our creative efforts, its goal must be to surpass or at least be said to surpass the basics of physicality (i.e.: the artwork's physical presence, its status as a thing, an object, an artwork). Why? Essentially, for an artwork to rise above its mundane physical appearance, it must be of such a nature that the mystical existence of its soul - the art within it, (if it is there at all), will wish to emerge - to make itself "felt", to be sensually available to a viewer open to receiving it. That is the stuff of artwork creating at its most powerful... It has a message (within it) to share. In essence, the visual language that is artwork making has but one “collective” purpose: to speak (if it can) to reach out and touch and move each and every individual open to the “art” within a wondrously created artwork.  

It's not about "me"...

As for my own paintings, drawings, sculptures, etc. It is not about me. I have never felt the need to own, hold dear or hold  back my creations for my sole appreciation. Their purpose is to reach out, to connect with  others who, in turn, may appreciate, reject or simply observe what has been presented to them. I would hope viewers of my work feel  more of a connection with the people, places and things I paint than with me.  Focusing on a creator is to redirect one’s attention to a narrator rather than to the more important story being told within an artwork. Why bother creating, if the goal is to be celebrated? We might as well simply stand nude on a pedestal and await the adulation being sought. 

Will you know me?

For all intents and purposes, defining someone’s character, personality or traits  by associating them with their artwork is a rather tenuous amateur contention akin to pop psychology. Analyzing the psyche or personality of a creator, in our times, is more a judgment call based on populist opinions and beliefs than facts or reality. And, as titillating as our pseudo-psychological meanderings might be, the eventual findings may say more about the person “wondering about” than the person being wondered about. 

The passion, the calling...

Lastly, re “the call” to create, versus a choosing to do so. 

Once again, we live in a time of everything meeting our wants rather than our needs. We tend to romanticize certain words (such as “calling”). With words being played with today rather than naturally evolving, it does give rise to the consideration that such a thing as a "calling" is a cut above the basic human trait of “wanting to”. In essence, a calling, in our times, has come to mean an almost spiritual or religious fervour regarding one thing or another. It implies that those of us "who are called" are somewhat more special than the average lot of "normal mortals".  

Now, if all we mean by this is that "we have a strong urge and ability in a specific area of expertise", then I would consider the word legitimate. More insinuation than that, though, as to its origins or intent and I would begin to feel that a twinge of pomposity, which could easily be associated with other descriptives such as superiority and self-aggrandizement, was at play. . 

Luck of the draw...

The only thing which is different in those of us interested in any form of artwork making is that we have not yet had our curiosities and urges to make things taken away from us by a world which fears difference and wonder. In that we should simply consider ourselves lucky not better than. Basically, at best, a calling means  “having a purpose” and at worst  “having a holy above the fray passion”.... which, in past eras was often referred to as displaying an exuberance.... akin to an erotic seizure...... Maybe we should be careful with what we wish for. 

To summarize. I would wager that most of us  LOVE what we do and wish to continue doing it for as long as our capacities allow. (That is certainly praiseworthy since such an attitude will surely keep us younger, longer...) But calling our high spirited interest a “calling”, in this iffy era of artwork making, is... to be honest,  “a bit” of a stretch. 

Me, myself and I...

Being seen is "a thing' these days. We crave it through our selfies despite the fact we seem to know that it is a sign of anxiety and depression to have to constantly convince ourselves we exist. But artwork making is hugely different than that which we do with our phones. The idea is to at least know the ballpark definition of a professional... i.e.: It's someone who knows enough to take 2 steps back when presenting his or her wares to those who are interested in their "product". It's simply being mature enough to "shut up" - to allow a completed artwork to have its own say (if it can) because that is what artworks do... when well rendered... they allow the art from within to emerge and speak.