1:35 PM 10/29/2002
I arrived at the profession of painting in the fine arts late in life, and found the practice of painting alive an well on the fringes of the fine arts community, but essentially dead in the center. As for any higher meaning being ascribed to art, I observed the same thing, only worse... at the center of the fine arts community; art had been declared to have no higher purpose, or objective value.
When I questioned what I observed, I was immediately shouted down by the 'true believers' in the fine arts community, with a furor and degree of unreason which is sometimes characteristic in the none-too-bright followers of authoritarian extremist religious sects. It seemed that questioning the veracity of the beliefs of the Modern and Postmodern movements was verboten.
At the same time, it was easy to observe that the large majority of people were not all that taken with much of what was passing for art in the politically powerful (and intellectually inbred) community of dealers, critics, curators, pundits.
This made me wonder… why were the Postmodernists so strident?
If they are so sure that their vision of 'what art is', is such a certainty, then why doesn't reasonable explanation and discussion supplant the 'shouting-down' and name-calling tactics that are currently employed?
So I moved into the margins of art, and gradually became aware that I liked a lot of what I saw, out there. One would expect to see the better work in fine galleries, and the lesser work in the fringes, but that was not what I observed.
I began to realise that something was seriously topsy-turvy... I could go down to gallery-row, and see a lot of stuff up for display that, in my opinion, was trash, and then I could go to a street fair, or a tiny gallery in an out-of-the way location, or the website of some unheard of painter... and wind up being moved by the work, and mightily impressed.
Why was it, I asked myself, that much of the stuff in the fashionable galleries appears to be incompetent and pointless... with asking prices over ten thousand dollars.... while the stuff that moves me deeply... that inspires me... is that of painters who are gallery rejects?
Am I really that stupid? I don't think so.
Am I really that un-educated? Not any more, that is for sure... I have spent much of the past seven years studying art history, theory, and related subjects.
The more I studied, the more convinced I became, that much of what passes for valid art theory has more to do with politics, and the vested interests of the people putting it forward, than with art.
Since I consider art to be on a level with science, insofar as its importance to humanity is concerned, I began a comparative study of the contributions that art, and science have made to the human condition. While Modernism can arguably be said to have had a significant positive impact on human thought and emotion, it seems to me that its positive impact had pretty well died off (with a few notable exceptions) by the 1980's. Since then, the primary thrust of art has been to belittle its purpose, and to attempt to shock us... not exactly on a peer with the scientific contributions, during the same time frame.
Science uses the merciless yardstick of the 'scientific method', to advance itself... a theory does not become a theory, until it proves itself through the process of being reproducibly verified, through testing. An idea has to be proven to work, before it attains the status of an accepted theory... and even then, it only maintains respect until it is replaced by a better theory, at which time it is discarded.
What sort of proof does a theory of art require, and why do adherents to any particular theory of art, employ power politics and quasi-religious 'true-believer' tactics, to defend a theory, when it is challenged?
Scientists are expected to have the appropriate intellectual tools, in order to pursue their work. Picture a physicist, who had no head for higher mathematics... this person would be incapable of performing in the field competently.
How is it, then, that so many painters (they usually prefer the term artist) claim that it is not necessary for them to know how to draw or paint properly, or to understand the basics of visual communication... colour, line, value, composition, perspective, etc...
Science is a careful discipline, which demands of its practitioners that they know what they are doing, and that they produce verifiable results.
The Postmodern visual arts, on the other hand, claim that there is little distinction between competent and incompetent work, but with a distinct preference for incompetent work, if one or the other must be chosen.
Science has produced many technological advances, using its method.
The Fine Visual Arts have, in the same period of time, contributed negatively to the human emotional condition... except for those practitioners on the fringes. It seems to me that the more competent one's work becomes in the fine arts, the less it is embraced by the Fine Art Establishment, and the more it is embraced by the great majority of human beings.
This would all be idle musing, if I left it at that... but I decided to see what I could do, for myself at least, to use these insights to develop a method of working in my chosen field (a painter in the fine arts), that would borrow some elements of the scientific approach, that would be useful to me in painting.
First, I developed the habit of both painting and studying ten to twelve hours per day, almost every day. I did not limit my studies to the fine arts, but also included a good general education, plus an intensive regimen of study in the computer sciences, which I find particularly interesting.
Second, I made a point of mastering the draughtsmanship aspects of my field, so that I would have a full complement of tools available. This has included everything from realism to conceptual to cartooning, in as many different media as I could possibly squeeze in... drawing and sketching, paint of every type, small sculpture, digital tools (computer art), and a few other, strange experiments. Not everything I tried panned out, but I tried to give myself enough across-the-board experience, to know what was available. The only limitation I hit, was in the printmaking area, which was cost prohibitive, due to equipment costs. On the other hand, the computer, and a good printer, allows me to produce inkjet prints.
Third, I spent over four years doing a serious study of fine art history, and theory.
Fourth, I did not join a single fine arts organisation. I felt it was better for me to maintain independence of mind, and I am painfully aware that much of the fine art community is extremely partisan... to a fanatic degree... where various forms of expression are concerned.
Fifth, I abandoned the search for a gallery, or a dealer, or any single patron, who might unduly influence my work, through financial means. Instead, I embarked on the extremely difficult task of representing myself, and managing my own clients... mostly through auction sales, and my website.
Sixth, I learned how to write, so that I would be able to say those things that need saying, but are not amenable to communicating visually, and require words to be said.
Seventh, I made a particular point of mastering the most basic of visual instruments (that are not a part of the human body)... pencil (or pen or charcoal or conte stick) on paper. Upon this basis... black and white, line and value, pencil and paper... everything that might follow, will be built.
My somewhat amusing goal, combining financial security with total mobility, is to become capable of earning a modest living with nothing more than a change of clothes, a laptop computer (and the Internet), a digital camera, pencil, and paper. Another thing I find pretty amusing, is just how quickly I am gaining, on accomplishing this goal.
Eighth... there is no number eight. Seven was it.
I'm interested in using the fine arts to tell with as much honesty as I can muster, what I see, and how I feel about what I see, of the world that I live in, and the people (and other creatures and things) that inhabit it.
I believe that science is the embodiment of the advancement of intellect, and that art is the embodiment of the advancement of emotional maturity. If we were purely logical beings, we would not need art... but we are not.
I think that when an artist is less honest than they might be, about what they see, and how they feel about it, that they are committing a breach of trust against humanity that is equal to that which a scientist commits when they fake experiment results.
Art and science, the disciplines that advance humanity emotionally and intellectually, are essential to our evolution, into something decent, that deserves continued survival. Neither can turn the trick, without the other.
If you want to see what happens, when science gets ahead of art... when intellect gets ahead of emotional maturation... take a look around.