This story begins, like many stories, at the end. During the four-year period beginning in or about January 1996 and ending with the turn of the new millennium, I devoted myself to intensive study, teaching myself to paint, sculpt, and think. (the latter, all over again, since I had experienced a stroke in 1994 that did some serious damage to my thinking process)
By January 2000, I had accomplished what I believe to be a fairly solid basic liberal arts education, albeit without any piece of paper to prove it. Along the way, I had learned enough about what is called Fine Art to know that in order to proceed with my self-education, I was going to have to begin thinking for myself and drawing my own conclusions, instead of simply absorbing what others had already written on the subject. What follows is the crux of my first year in this new exercise.
In April 2000, it occurred to me that science concerns itself with the search for truth (objective reality), and art concerns itself with the search for honesty (subjective reality).
In September 2000, it occurred to me that art is the resonance between emotion and intellect.
Of course, there was a lot of thinking going on under the surface, that accounted for these two very brief statements, and that is what will occupy the rest of this brief presentation. These thoughts are not entirely my own, but are what have accumulated in my head over years of reading, and of course, are embellished with notions and conclusions that are distinctly my own, as well.
In order to work within a field of study, it is a good idea to know the origins of that field, and the path it has traveled. Where did what we call Fine Art (art) come from, and what general path has it traveled? I believe it began a very long time ago, around the time our species was just becoming Homo Sapiens, and as part of a much broader conceptual heading than what we consider art today.
The search to better understand 'cause and effect' would be a good place to begin, in mankind's earliest attempts to master their environment. Much of the day-to-day instances of cause and effect are easily understood. If one meets a saber tooth tiger with nothing but bare hands in the way of weapons, one becomes dinner. If one has a proper spear in hand, one may live to enjoy eating dinner, instead. Things like the weather, disease, and being able better to succeed in the hunt, mating etc., were a good deal more subtle, though, and in order to try managing such mysterious parts of the environment, magic came into being. This early magic would have been pretty all-inclusive in today's terms and have nothing whatsoever to do with sleight-of-hand, but would have been sort of a combination of religion, science, and art. Early dance, music, cave paintings and primitive sculpture all were probably intended as means to the end of directly influencing the environment; positive causes, that would elicit positive effects. Witch doctors and medicine men were both religious and scientific, as well as political leaders, except of course, there was no distinction between religion and science, it was one unified concept, and the art that was practiced under such a concept was magic, and most likely forbidden to all but a select few.
As science and religion gradually became distinct phenomena, art was still subsumed in both, and would only become recognised as a distinct act in its own right after humanity had become more socially developed, and had begun to practice the political, ethical and other social sciences, and developed a greater degree of comfort, through an improved mastery of environment.
As science and religion began to become distinct from one another theoretically, so did Church and State gradually begin to become separate entities in the practical sphere. Art was pretty much still done under commission to these two great employers, but the artist as a specialized craftsman had entered the landscape, and as even the earliest examples of art executed for church and state attest, had begun to (cleverly and/or unconsciously) inject his own sometimes subversive opinions into the work he executed for his masters. Over the centuries since, the reigns have gradually loosened, until today, in many places in the world, it can honestly be said that the artist can say anything he or she wishes to say, whether it is valid, significant, honest, etc., or not.
Now, backing up a bit on the time line, we can see that as long as the actual practice of art was in the hands of the religious, or scientific, or political person themselves, it's intent followed their wishes perfectly. As soon as they delegated the making of the religious or political mask, instrument, icon, statue, painting, song, dance etc., to someone else, well, then, that person's work might just say what the master wanted, or then again, it might not. In those days, as now, it was difficult to find good help, and if you wanted anything done right, you had to do it yourself. Knowing, as we do today, just how much of the human though process proceeds at levels that are inaccessible to consciousness, it is not surprising that art, especially those forms that do not use language, would be so easily subverted, and in ways that were probably not apparent to church, state, or artist (well, some of the time, anyway). As soon as the role of artist (or craftsman) had been invented, the struggle for artistic freedom began.
Now let's look at the situation from another angle, that of intellect vs. emotion. Magic was the all-inclusive beginning, engaging both intellect and emotion completely. Once the division of magic into separate domains of science and religion began, the nature of the truths they sought began to have an influence on the means used to determine those truths. Science, seeking truths of an objective, external nature, found reason (intellect) to be the better tool, while religion, seeking inner, more subjective truths, found faith (emotion) the tool of choice. Each domain found a use for art, but the uses were noticeably different. Even today, science uses the concept that beauty, simplicity, and elegance, are significant properties of the physical universe, and the equations and theories that describe it. Religion, politics, advertising, television, etc., tend, on the other hand, to use art more for its emotional impact.
Art may be used by either intellect or emotion, but is servant to neither. It seems to thrive on consilience, borrowing easily from and giving back to all fields, in either camp. Since it is a direct descendant of magic, anything can happen, and explanations are not required. Ideas can be generated in art, which then can be used in any or all domains, the only proviso being that, in the end, art will also turn to any and all domains for raw material, which it will use in ways that are not always met with applause by any or all people. The more control the other domains attempt to exert on art, the less effectively it works, and the more freedom it is given, the more effectively it works. Art, amenable to either intellect or emotion, seems to abhor only one thing, and that is insincerity. It seems to matter less whether the artist has addressed any sort of objective truth, than that the artist has done his or her level best to approach whatever subject honestly. On the one hand, there is intellect, science, and all that it has spawned, seeking objective, external truth, and on the other hand there is emotion, religion, and all that it has spawned, and in the middle, in no hand at all, there is art, moderating the intellectual - emotional struggle, seeking only personal honesty, which is fallible by definition, and subject to change without notice.
This is not a bad place at all, for me to end.
In April 2000, it occurred to me that science concerns itself with the search for truth (objective reality), and art concerns itself with the search for honesty (subjective reality).
This is relatively easy for me to do, right now, to paint honestly. (notwithstanding of course, the human penchant for dishonesty) Why? Because no one knows who I am, and no one is buying my work, so I don't have anything to get in my way, of presenting what I see as honestly as possible. In a day, or a week, or a month, or 20 years, someone may 'discover' my work, and as soon as the money starts coming in.... so does the conflict of interest, to paint what pays, to go with the flow. It makes me sweat just thinking about it, especially since, like everyone else, I could use the money... and the recognition, fame, adulation, the story is as old as mankind.
In September 2000, it occurred to me that art is the resonance between emotion and intellect.
Yes, I think we all know what this is, and have felt it. This statement just smells right to me. I don't know if someone else said it before me, but I do know that it occurred to me directly, through my own experience, and so even if it is an old discovery, that I have just rediscovered for myself, then that is enough, because it means I am moving along the right track.
These two statements summarize nicely for me, what to go after in the making of art (honesty), and how to how to recognize when one has succeeded.
Thank you for your attention.
Principle scientific sources:
Candace Pert, PhD - "Molecules of Emotion"
Tor Norretranders - "The User Illusion"
Edward O. Wilson - "Consilience"
Dean Keith Simonton - "Origins of Genius"
Principal Artistic Sources - The works of:
Pablo Picasso
Rembrandt Harmensz Van Rijn
Edward Hopper
Billy Morrow Jackson