 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.
Comments
Why do so-called "artists" have to "speak" for their work?
Is it so immature as an expression that it needs mommy or daddy to explain it, speak for it, dominate it, control its offering? Why can't our artworks stand on their own? If they individually or collectively have anything of value to say, they are the ones to do it, not us their creators. What viewers get from our work is what THEY discover, not necessarily what WE have convinced ourselves the work SHOULD mean. Why are we so afraid of setting our work free to speak on its own? What control freaks we have become in this 21st century! As for being professional, that usually means making a living at doing what we do OR working at something else to pay the bills until that day comes when we can do "that which we wish to do" without worrying about starving. But let's face it. "Being an artist" is probably the least professional work there is in our contemporary times. It is akin to arts and crafts, hobby activities and retirement. In our big bad world it is not considered a profession. Why? Simple. It does not have "official recognition" like other professions. Why? Any Tom, Dick or Harriet "can say they are" and call their work "art" and no one screams fraud. Let's try calling ourselves dentist or surgeon or mechanic or accountant or physicist or a unionized labourer without paying our union dues.... just cause we want to. Why don't we do that? It could get us a serious fine or a jail sentence. Yes, 99.9% of humans can self-express but that does not make us artists. Once, "artist" was a title given those who were recognized as "experts" in a specific field. Today it is simply a title we give ourselves as if it still holds the reverence it once did. I gave up on the superficiality of it meaning anything a long time ago. Over the years, I've come to simply and proudly be known for what I "do" - not for what "I purportedly am". My work proves who I am, (or not). Like my creations, I don't need to explain myself. For all intents and purposes what I do is draw, paint, etc. I'm a portrait painter, a landscape painter, an expressionist through word paintings, a cartoonist, a social and political commentator, a writer, a sculptor. Whether I do it well or not depends more on those who look upon my work than on what I determine it to be. All in all, this mind set, has freed me from the shackles of wannabeism; the need to be seen to be anything special (or more than???). I like being linked with my achievements and not some superficial status which somehow elevates me to a position higher than "the rest". Becoming an artist, if it is ever in the cards, is a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong process over which we have no control other than through the quality of our "makings". The title of artist, no matter how much we abuse it today, cannot be "legitimately" absconded with. It is a status which can only be awarded to us by the world of viewers who, for some reason or other, consider the genie emerging from our lamp to be a mesmerizing presence and experience in their world. Sadly, today we are too much into identity and too little into the serious work associated with that identity. And it more often than not shows it. Meshugga (not aside), Yoshitomo Nara is a rather well-regarded creative for no other reason than he fits the contemporary narrative of less is more, especially in the areas of traditional talent and skillsets. Like many of his peers, his work focuses on his talents as a brander - a creator of his own persona rather than a traditional master of an “oeuvre”. His is a “branding art” not unlike that of Coke, Ralph Lauren or Nike symbolism. It is a genre which says “me” rather than the world beyond me. In that, it is very contemporary - a self-aggrandizing presentation rather than a reaching out, a philosophic rendering or a statement for communication... But is that all it is?
At first glance, there is nothing more “there” than what the “presenter” in the video puts forward. Ironically, the “look at me style” of her own presence tries to emulate the depth of the content of the exhibition - but doesn't seem to get it. From the very beginning, her description of the works on display is more in keeping with a benevolent preacher of the faith. Well rehearsed, she immediately proceeds, not to enlighten regarding the “artist’s” process, but rather to proselytize, i.e.: to advise us on what we should be thinking and feeling if we want to get "the message”.... i.e.: in order that we become the true Orwellian believers we should be. For all intents and purposes, if Nara’s goal is the one described in this video, the process (if there is one) appears to shamelessly have more to do with earmarking his projects in such a way as to attract (i.e.: entice and hold) “shoppers” more than viewers and potential collectors. To that effect, his pupil-less-eyeballed children are “alluring” - even when the chill they convey feels dangerous. They say more through their blank gawking than do those "brats" he seemingly depicts as precursors to that blindness. The blank stares imply a viewer’s hypnosis induced submission to side-show freakism which, in turn, relates more to our society's reality-TV weirdness obsession than it does to “achievement”. And in that sense, Nara is all about $UCCE$$. Or is he? Does all of the above mean his work is worth the moneys purportedly paid out for his psycho-social meanderings? One would have to say: probably, since those he purportedly seeks to attract are not “knowing collectors” but rather buyers who actually do fork out the euros, dollars, and yen (and willingly so), for whatever the subject matter or quality of the work he and others put forward. Un-hunh? Interesting... Does this, therefore, mean the decision-making of these “investors” reflects a lack of knowledge in art? Not necessarily. Again, it’s a matter of perceived cleverness, of financial smarts. The moneys being spent by those who heft the piles of cash have less to do with what the artist is saying and more to do with “how much they can eventually get when they flip the “product”. But then, that's par for the course. Buying artwork at this level has more to do with gambling and daring than perceptive genius. It’s a marketplace strategy - a serious lark where players engage in an arena in which few if any of us can be considered players and, therefore, ever fewer of us who can pooh-pooh the involved marketing concepts outright. Why? Simple. This is not our backyard. We have no idea what the players are thinking of and few if any of us would ever be allowed to even play in their alleyways. Neither our work nor our psyche fit this schtick anyway. That being said, the old adage holds: “Value is what someone is willing to pay”, whether its for a fluorescent pink Hummer or a diamond studded Volks; whether the commodity is a linen rag or what’s painted on that rag. It all rather has more to do with the information emanating from the minds of “marketplace manipulators” than it does the traditional esoteric search for human genius. It's capitalism with a capital C. North Americans should know that by now. Or do we? All in all, it depends on how we perceive the world and how easily we can be led into what a specific era’s game playing is about. Nonetheless, and regardless of the "poor-is-me" caste we hold onto when “we” pedal our own wares, it must be acknowledged that artwork which achieves the amount of “notice” Nara's does should at least be awarded more than a participation diploma. Also, and more importantly, and whether we like it or not, anything can be deemed to be “art" if, in its universality, it reflects the level to which a society has either risen or fallen in its quest to be an "era" of note. Though I have little empathy for Nara’s style of work, I cannot fault his reflections. If artwork be “art”, it must speak to the times and generally when it does, it does so throughout eternity. As far as Nara is concerned, he definitely speaks to the freakish nature of our self-effacing and destructive contemporary natures. That being said, what his actual goal is I can only guess. Despite it all, there is always a saving grace for "we artists", that is... If our “artwork” eventually stands the test of time (even despite never garnering a price tag of millions - see Rembrandt, van Gogh, et al), it will nonetheless have as much merit as those of Nara and company, since time is unbiased, non-judgmental and egalitarian, it judges none and only seeks reflections of its "true" self as a neutral ground for experience. But then, from the beginning, we must accept that artwork wishing to be art must have more to say than lots about me, myself and I. For artworks to be art, they cannot simply be a salve to make us feel better. The "Art" within artwork is a tangible yet enigmatic statement, a sharing, a reaching out beyond the self - a commitment to observed fact and truth, not simply a rendition of a perfect morning glory, using the right blues and purples. Sadly, most of us are content to be avid copyists or contemporary pretenders to the throne of expressive childhood "personableness" - (may I insert here: without the talent or spontaneity required to be and do as a child). How so? Being adults, we are stuck with a limited palette of colours and often a sorely wanting set of visual expression skills. Children do not need to learn self-expression. Adults, on the other hand, are often clueless in the area. Though we look hard, we don't often "see". And that is where we fail to ever reach "artisthood". Artwork creation is an exercise in advancing skills. On the other hand, creating what wishes to be "art" is more a matter of seeing beyond the ordinary and sharing that extraordinariness with others. But in our times, this is becoming more and more difficult. Natural curiosity and imagination are quickly being eroded, ripped asunder from our normal human processes of growing. How so? Evolving in the 21st century seems to have taken a turn for the worse - both psychologically and physically, both internally and socially, both geographically and ecologically. Our children's souls are heavy with emptiness though our their minds are filled with worried busyness. And so, as creatives, We don't dare anymore. Though we run faster, we simply get nowhere sooner and wonder about the anxious states we experience. It's as if we are killing off the power to create rather than stimulating it. Whether we like it or not, to create art is to dive ever more deeply into ever more complex situations despite the fear we may actually drown in the process. That is the act of living fully. That excitement is what encourages more and more of our "self" to glow. In essence, to be art, our artwork must be about more than the safe environs me, myself and I create for ourselves. That said, don’t the Nara fetish figures not solely mirror his “own weird self”, his own stagnation? I wager not. Nara is not blind. Like Warhol, he shares his obsessions with “us” - his contemporary kin. . . And how easily we react if not identify with the weirdness of his figures is a reflection of how correct he is in his observations. Nara’s repetitious "I wanna be nasty” child is like a never ending tantrum - cute at 5 but beyond that age bracket it becomes a disquieting “disturbance”, a bizarre reflection of the social and mental construct of our adulthoods which seem increasingly focused on narcissism as analgesic. With 40 being the new 20 and 60 the new 40, we are become the brats we raised while stoking our fear of the inevitability of death; wasting creative potential and the enjoyment of the fullness of time we do have between now.... and then. The overall effect of Yoshitomo Nara's pieces is admittedly disturbing, not because they are, but because our times are disturbing... His work speaks to a world order that is slowly eating away at anything which remotely pretends to be life-giving, trusting, affectionate, bred of healthy intercourse and environmental survival. Does that make Nara's work "valuable"? Yes. Why? Because it is a reference to our times; to the disturbance which affects how we will survive, or not, in the near and far future... The "I, Me, Moi" rationale of our era seems unending in its quest to swallow us up. There is too much evidence at play re the disappearance of a valid self in our times where, in lieu, a pastiche, a mock-up of our reality seems to have more going for it than the real us. At times, it feels as if we are nothing more than carcasses upon which we endlessly erase the beauty that once was there by applying more and more “skin graffiti” to it. Why? In a quest to completely rid ourselves of the natural perfection that we are (flawed, though it is)? Nara's blinding if not blind brats know this. In the end, this astute artist does now what thousands of others did in their own previous centuries. Like Picasso, Delacroix, Hopper, Goya, Warhol, he knows what is most important in "art" (that so abused word) and that is to hand out mirrors to us all. And so, just maybe, Nara's freaky child with the non-seeing eyes is simply the mirror image of our children raised from toddlerhood to adolescence to adulthood - raised to click away at a virtual nothing world, while the real one passes them by unnoticed... But then... Just maybe, I read Nara's work incorrectly.... Maybe not..... Only the mirrors we look into can tell. My response to the above title posting, on LinkedIn, is presented on my Blog because it is too long for LinkedIn.
The author accused me of not reading her post. And so I answered the following: The publicly proffered assumption that I had not read your article is unfounded and discourteous. I had. Several times even. Getting to the crux of your post was a bit complex. I did not “get” whether it was about mental health issues or a need to market your services. You state: “I have talked with so many amazing artists.” (immediately adding): “Inevitably, these artists HIDE! They question whether they are good enough compared to other artists. They question their own value and validity as artists. They suffer from . . . impostor syndrome. . .they cling to it like it’s going out of style. Meanwhile, mediocre artists. . . sell like mad.” I can only surmise that of the “so many amazing artists” you encounter, a large segment of them seem to suffer from anxiety, feelings of incompetence and a fear of failure. They see themselves (as you state) as fraudulent in their positioning of themselves as “artists”. In the sentence describing your dealings with them you infer that they should also feel like victims since your chosen quest is to “emancipate artists from sitting under the doctrine of the gatekeepers who keep them chained to a life of failure and starvation. (!!!) After 52 years in the visual arts (successfully I may add) I have never known it to be that discouraging an environment. . . Difficult? Yes. Discouraging ? No. And this despite the fact of my work being consistently rejected by the gallery and “art scene”. Maybe it’s all in the way we look at things. Rejected, I chose to go it my way rather than give up. That being said, your post is nonetheless a serious one. It implies that there are several mental health issues “out there” which need to be looked into. When anxiety is as prominent as you cite, would it not be best to redirect the sufferers to legitimate therapeutic interventions rather than to a marketing strategy? Though anxiety and depression are rather prevalent in our times, these symptoms should not be considered acceptable (normal) simply because there is more of this than at any other time in history - even in children and adolescents. I also suggest that, despite our 21st century penchant for romanticizing mental health issues as they purportedly relate to “artists”, this milieu is no more prone to mental health turmoil than any other professional environment. Dr. Judith Schlesinger’s second edition of “The Insanity Hoax” dispels any notion that feelings of being impostors to a degree of dysfunction or anxiety are particularly “attached” to the art world”. In the grand scheme of things, creatives should not, a priori, be assumed to be overly sensitive or acceptably (read artistically) predisposed to mental health concerns. Don’t I know of artists who have issues? Yes. But then, the artwork related to their distress is reflective of a personal quest to salve their distraught souls. Once this is achieved they begin again to create to reach out beyond themselves. Any of them I’ve encountered these past 52 years of artistic life have always created “despite” their issues, not because of them. As with extreme tinitus to a musician or mental health concerns to any one of us, these are annoying asides to the quest to create, not catalysts or drawbacks. |
Archives
September 2024
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed