4:28 PM 7/28/03
A long time ago, Picasso said something to the effect that if he knew 'what art was'... he would keep it to himself.
When I began painting in January of 1996, I did not immediately think about 'painting' versus 'making art'... I was just painting, because I had paint, brushes, scraps of wood to paint on, and time to paint. Later, as I became more aware of the process, as viewed by other people, I began to be able to form opinions for myself, of the difference between painting and 'making art', which I will shorten to 'art', where appropriate, for brevity's sake.
I offer the proviso, here, that I may not know what I am talking about, where art is concerned, so let the reader beware. I will also add, that I am not alone in my ignorance... from what I have been able to gather in seven years of work and study... neither does anyone else, really know what they are talking about any better than I do, where art is concerned. Those who know even a little bit of what they are talking about, would probably be inclined to agree with me. Those who claim certainty for their knowledge are probably cranks, or fools, or both.
So that being said... here is my (heh) opinion.
There are literally hordes of people at present, who go around calling themselves 'artists'. The vast majority of them, in my opinion, are no such thing. The word 'artist' is a dangerous word for someone to use, to describe themselves. I'm a painter. I have studied and practiced the craft of painting for about seven years, now, and by any definition, I am a reasonably accomplished painter. This does not, however, make me an artist.
The very best definition of 'art' that I have seen, is the one put forward by R.G. Collingwood in his 1938 classic text, 'The Principles Of Art'. I am not going to repeat his 336-page explanation here, but in less than a sentence, art is (heavily paraphrased) 'the expression of a specific instance of an emotion'.
So, maybe I paint you a picture of how I felt, at a very specific moment in time, and to do so, I use the medium of my front steps, or an old gym shoe, or a pile of fruit. This is significantly different than the 'painter's task' of presenting the world with a visually accurate image of how my front steps, a specific old gym shoe, or pile of fruit actually looks. In the first case, I am painting an accurate representation of my emotions, as reflected off a specific object, and in the second case, I am painting an accurate representation of the object itself. Of course, in the case of nonrepresentational art, the same thing holds true, except the 'object' is just the paint itself, laid down on the substrate.
But there is more to 'being an artist', than just presenting one's emotions, as described above. The word 'artist' is a 'loaded' word. When someone says a person is an 'artist', they usually mean not that the person has attempted to 'make art'... but that the person has succeeded in 'making art', and has done so to such a degree, that the work has some sort of difficult-to-define, but widely recognised value, to humanity in general.
Artists... write culture. This is a big deal, whether anyone can explain exactly why, without sounding like they are babbling bullshit... or not. This is why, in my opinion, it is not a very bright idea to publicly proclaim one's-self an artist... at least not in advance of having a quorum of knowledgeable peers, issue the proclamation first.
And yet, every day, people... myself included... take up pen, brush, etc., with the express purpose of becoming artists. This is a pretty arrogant thing to do, but it probably takes a degree of self-confidence bordering on arrogance, to succeed in such a venture. A painter can probably be made, by following what was done by those who came before, but to prevail in the arts to such an extent, that one will be recognised as having succeeded by society in general, requires extreme independence of thought.
I do not believe that artists are born... I believe that they are self-made. Having the raw ability necessary to become an artist is prerequisite to the task... but it is not enough for anything more than 'a good start'. The real trick, in my opinion, is that in 'becoming an artist'... one never arrives... it is an open-ended process, that continues until one dies. After one is dead... it is then Ok to refer to one's-self as an artist. Heh.
So... what to do, if you are one of those people among the hordes, wanting to 'be' an artist, and 'make art'??? Well.... first of all... don't take my advice for anything. Don't take Picasso's or Rembrandt's or anyone else's word either... at least not as the 'final word'... on anything. Picasso had a point, when he said that if he knew what art was, he would not tell anyone. 'What art is', cannot be taught... it has to be discovered independently.
For myself... I am a painter working in the fine arts. I aspire to 'make art', but I realise that in spite of all talent, and confidence, and effort, I may still fail at the very public level of 'writing culture', because at that level, whether my production is 'art' or not, is a matter of public opinion... not wittig's opinion. Many excellent painters pass into near-total obscurity after their deaths, in spite of their painterly abilities, simply because culture veered away from, instead of toward, their work, after the fact.
For myself... I believe that the expression of emotion should be as 'honest' as possible. One cannot expect to produce work of any lasting value to human culture, if it is less than as forthright as the person making it, can muster. To lie into the 'cultural public record' is as great, or a greater sin, than a scientist faking experimental results. To present a dishonest emotion, and name it as sincere, is the equivalent of a pharmaceutical company putting poison into capsules, and selling it under the name of vitamins. Our politicians, leaders in business, religious leaders, pretty much all of them... liars... selling us poison, outrage, crap, hatred and revenge, under the name of things healthy and good. The results of this systemic poisoning are apparent everywhere one looks, the world round.
'Making Art' doesn't pay very well. One of the few things rarer than a wealthy painter, is a wealthy aspiring artist... especially in this day and age, when emotion expressed honestly is bound to be a foreign and upsetting experience to almost everyone living in the emotionally polluted sewer of the early 21st century. This is good, because the field attracts fewer outright crooks, than other, more money-centric professions. Still... it does seem to attract a lot of neurotics, who would abuse the profession for fame/ notoriety, even in the absence of cash.
'Making Art' is not about amusing one's self, or impressing other people, or tricking a lot of people into thinking your bullshit is 'real' or 'cutting edge', so you can steal their money under false pretence... it is about 'writing culture', defining what possible future human culture might take, in order that 'humanity', might have more of a direct relationship with 'humane', than is currently the case. Otherwise, one may as well run for public office.
The difference between 'Art' and 'Political Cartoons' is that art points in (hopefully) a 'right' direction for culture to take, while political cartoons point out what directions not to take. Many people, who eventually achieved the public status of 'artist', were also active political cartoonists.
While there are some examples of the hopelessly neurotic and even the full-blown mentally ill, among the ranks of known artists, this is not the rule, nor the direction I would hope to take myself. I would much rather be a canny and ruthless Picasso, or a Sheeler, Wyeth, or Raphael Soyer, than a suicidal Van Gogh.
Being prolific seems to be a good idea for my work. The faster I work (while remaining sane about it, so as not to produce careless work), the more representative of my true emotional state the work seems to be. This may not be true for everyone, but it does seem to be the case for me... the less time I spend agonising over the 'details', the less 'rehearsed' the work is.
Intellectually, figuring out what I really thought about Picasso and his work was important for me. All sorts of stuff has been written about Picasso and his work, but in my opinion, a lot of it was extremely partisan, one way or the other. I could not afford to depend on what other people had to say about Picasso's work... I had to develop my own opinions, because Picasso, more than anyone else... designed the framework for 20th century art/ culture (as opposed to 19th century art). Without being able to figure out... for myself... what of his work was good, bad, indifferent, serious, practice, or pulling the public's leg... whose shoulders could I stand on, to write 21st century art/ culture?
I would no more consider copying Picasso's work, than I would be capable of copying it, even if I wanted to. I'm not Picasso. Besides, if I was going to copy anyone's work, it would be Wyeth's... but I couldn't copy his work, either. The only person whose work I seem capable of copying... is wittig.
I think that becoming a full time, self-supporting painter is an important step, if one has aspirations toward becoming an artist. Why? Learning how to express one's emotions succinctly in paint requires a huge amount of practice. There seems to be a romantic notion floating around, about the 'natural artist', who paints work capable of moving people... effortlessly. As far as I'm concerned, this is pure fiction, 99.999% of the time, if not universally. Most people cannot become competent painters working part time, let alone artists. The notion of becoming an artist in one's spare time seems about as likely as becoming a brain surgeon, attending night classes at the local community college. If you think that a brain surgeon's job is more important than an artist's job... go to medical school. A brain surgeon works on peoples' brains one at a time... an artist works on the human emotional map en-masse. Which one do you suppose has the capacity to do more good... or harm?
If you don't think that the arts are as significant to the development of the human condition as any other pursuit... science, politics, whatever... remain a painter. Mediocrity might be acceptable in certain jobs... like sweeping floors, or digging ditches (probably not even there)... but it is the wrong attitude to bring to the job of writing culture, for future generations, once we scroll off the bottom of the page... into history.