had a great (to some...) conversation on Saturday night re: "what is art?"...
one definition:
"the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects..."
I used the term 'sincerity'...in my definition of what is art, meaning that one (an artist) must have it (sincerity) in their intent...in order for something to qualify as art to me.
some of the others involved had various definitions or explanations that generally followed the same lines except that one participant was adamant in the declaration that art (as a generalization) needed to blessed as such by someone possessing a formal education (or long experience) in order for it to qualify as legitimate art.
(PS: after talking the subect with my friend JM this evening over a beer, he called total BS on that theory...)
there was a statement that nothing was art until someone, other than whoever made it , saw it, thus completing the process of (sub)-creation and sharing.
I spoke of the uneducated "artist", such as myself, who possess no formal education in any type of art...which led me to disagree (strongly) with the whole sanctifying process mentioned above... I find it impossible to articulate a criticism based on education (having none myself), and difficult to articulate a criticism based on experience (being limited in many areas), so I base what I believe to be art on how I feel about it on an intuitive level. My response to composition, forms, proportion, color and material usage, etc either feels right to me or it doesn't. That intuition combined with my judgement of intent (including sincerity) forms the basis of my opinion of whether something is art or not (leaving out the final judgement of good art/bad art argument of course).
My intent, when doing my "art" is to express myself, either conceptually or emotionally, in forms that I find to be appealing and representational of what I feel (through intuition) are my base aesthetic values; being materials usage, proportion, color, texture, etc... Being what I term as a modernist, these values usually fall into the "truth and simplicity" categories, which is either a direct result of an uneducated mind finding comfort in the simplicity, or just pure dumb luck in finding (or trusting) those inherent qualities early in life. While I tend to believe that simple is harder (mainly as experienced through architecture) and it is good to explore that core structure of base values thoroughly, it is also one of my beliefs that only through pushing oneself into other areas less comfortable that we truly face our fears of experimentation in our craft(s).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I would argue that you are educated. Maybe you haven't taken classes in color theory, but your experience has given you the kind of education needed by artists.
Now somebody who is all "Oooooh, I love that picture of puppies in the Hallmark calendar" is what I consider uneducated. Somine who looks at what goes into the design of art (which is what you do) is someone who is informed enough to be a reliable voice on the subject. The word "educated" is misleading. "Informed" is much more appropriate here.
You're right in a very real sense...I am educated...by trial and error...which in basic form is no different than book educated...
It is really a point to the design community I work in as it tries to exclude experienced based practioners... Art is somewhat different as anyone can pick up a paint brush and "paint", pick up a pen and "write"... I picked up a welder and hey presto!, I'm a sculptor!!!
It is a matter of tapping the (sub)-creative areas in the brain and expressing them physically and refining them over time...
"Informed" is therefore also misleading to a point, don't you think? Informed connotes "having information" which may or may not be the case, especially in response to inspiration...
Maybe that's all bullshit, but that's the beauty of trying to figure it all out and doing something about it...
(ooh, that's going to lead me to another posting!)...
Post a Comment