The interface between life and art is a fuzzy place, with no clear, sharply defined border, where one crosses over from one to the other. Art is something that 'a person' does, and life, (as defined by the title line for this newsletter) is something that 'people' do, and neither of these entities, 'person' or 'people' have anything even remotely like clearly defined boundaries.
Last month's featured link ( http://ericbraks.tripod.com/index.htm ) received the usual number of positive comments, and a single dissident comment, taking issue with the artist's choice of models, who all are of the 'model of female beauty' that has been predominant in Western art as far back as the history of Western art; the slim, beautiful, voluptuous young woman. While it is true that there there are presently some artists who do not follow this preference, I think it is safe to say that at present, as in the past, the great majority do.
Let me preface my remarks by saying that for any reader who has checked out the full figure self-portraits I have done, they are invariably slimmer than the pot-bellied person typing this. Now, when I stand in front of a mirror and paint myself, I do not remember making any sort of conscious decision to lop off 25 or so pounds in the painting process, it just happened... or wouldn't it be funny, if the portrait was actually a more accurate appraisal of self, than the image of a too-fat man that I think I see in the mirror when I stop painting, and begin criticising myself. The best I have been able to decide thus far, is that the truth of it may lie somewhere between my distorted self-image when being critical of myself, and the distorted painted-image produced, with brush in hand.
For me, at least, choice of subject is not entirely a matter directed by my conscious mind. In fact, over the brief time that I have been painting, I have come to give a continually diminishing amount of time to choices of subject, and in fact, choices that one supposedly must make during the painting process itself. Most of the time, I stand at my easel (or sit at my computer) much like a monkey at the proverbial typwriter, pounding madly at the keys (or canvas), in the hopes that eventually a masterpiece will be produced, by sheer force of odds.
Bruno Lucchesi is a well known New York terra-cotta sculptor who specialises in nude figures, mostly female, mostly of the thin, classical type, with one exception; a model named Paddy, who is very heavy... some would say obese, and yet, Luchessi's treatment is done with such care, that no observer could overlook the beauty. He has been criticised for his portraying women in the manner he finds natural. Some people see it as sexist.
Another current artist (South American, I think), whose name I cannot recall at the moment, has recently become quite famous, and quite wealthy as well, by specialising in painting people... all people, in a stylised manner that can only be described as porcine, and grossly fat, by North American standards. He has been criticised for painting people the way he finds natural. Some people say it is grotesque.
This means, I suppose, that no matter which side an artist winds up on in this issue, never mind whether for esthetic or political motives, they will be criticised. Is it reasonable for an artist, who might make choices of subject (and this extends in all directions, not just where the shape of the human figure is concerned) for purely esthetic reasons, or without having any particular reason at all in mind, to be criticised for their choices for purely policical reasons? (or reasons of 'political correctness'?) In this particular case, the criticisms can become quite weird, for lack of a better word. If a man paints pictures of females (especially nudes) in the method of classical beauty, he can be criticised for being sexist, and viewing women as sex objects. If a woman paints in the same style, be it men or women, it is unlikely that she will receive the same criticism.
If a white person paints a black person with exaggerated African features (or with features that the critic perceives as exaggerated), they will be accused of racism. If a black person paints in the same style (exaggerated), be it a black or white portrait, it is less likely that the same criticism will be applied. I have experienced this particular criticism, myself. I had done paintings of several of my friends (who are African-American), and showed them publicly at a local arts festival, where some black viewers took exception to my 'white' portrayal of African Americans. As if by a miracle, it was at precisely that moment that two of the three people whose portraits were on display showed up, to visit their portraits on public display, and get photographs of themselves posing with the portraits. I'm not sure what might have transpired, if my friends hadn't come along when they did.
Enough.
Now, It is easy enough to see that artistic criticisms made on esthetic grounds belong, and are appropriate, but what about artistic criticisms made for reasons that are not purely esthetic, or in fact are purely political, or for reasons of political correctness? First, such criticism 'was, is now, and ever shall be' with us. It is not going to go away. Second, is it possible that art is doing in some cases the exact same thing, under the guise of 'esthetics'? Where, in fact, does 'politics' end, and 'esthetics' begin? One of the functions of art, is for the artist to paint what they see and feel about the place and the society they live in. If the place and the society in question is healthy, and robust, the results can be quite uplifting. If, on the other hand, the place and society are sick, toxic, polluted with greed and hatred, and all form of dishonesty, then the results can be quite unsettling.
Another function of art, is for the artist to in some way demonstrate the potential and possibilities of the situation that people find themselves living in, even (especially) if the situation is an unhealthy one, and to present the common everyday reality from novel perspectives, that might surprise viewers into an enlarged awareness of their environment, physical and emotional.
It would be unreasonable to expect society (or even other artists) to stop leveling politically charged criticisms at one's artwork, especially in light of the fact that 'esthetics' is a non-verbal means of accomplishing the same mission. (influencing people) One big difference, however, is that esthetics, being of a more non-verbal nature, is capable of pointing out for us things about our milieu that politics (or any other verbal mode of communications) cannot address. Seen in large, the dialectic between esthetics and politics appears to be an argument between the verbal and non-verbal sides of our larger social mind, and not differences between individuals.
It is necessary, then, for the argument, discussion, whatever... to continue. But it is wise for both 'sides', both 'art and life' or 'esthetics and politices', or 'verbal and non-verbal' or however you like to define it, each to be mindful that the other is working toward the same goals, albeit from a completely opposed perspective.