I was in a discussion the other day where we were talking about what makes a truly great artist. Of course, the norms of "creativity", "drive" and "inspiration" were all bandied about. And all of those things are, indeed things that a truly great artist does need to posses. Without them, they will fall into the abyss of being just someone who sells their wares on the streets to tourists who are looking for just the right painting to hang above the fire place..the one that matches the carpet and the draperies.
However, actual greatness in the art, be it music, poetry or illustrated depends upon one thing; the audience. I have very defined views about art and as such do not feel that it is objective to the artist. Being an artist myself, I find, that it matters not what feelings I want to impart to my audience as they view a work, it is what they take away that ultimately defines the piece.
In other words, art is not at the mercy of the one who creates it, rather once released, like the fledgling bird pushed from its nest, it must either fly or flounder. The public will decide its fate. We, as its creator can no longer support it, trying to give it life and help it to be understood. Either they get it...or they don't.
However, actual greatness in the art, be it music, poetry or illustrated depends upon one thing; the audience. I have very defined views about art and as such do not feel that it is objective to the artist. Being an artist myself, I find, that it matters not what feelings I want to impart to my audience as they view a work, it is what they take away that ultimately defines the piece.
In other words, art is not at the mercy of the one who creates it, rather once released, like the fledgling bird pushed from its nest, it must either fly or flounder. The public will decide its fate. We, as its creator can no longer support it, trying to give it life and help it to be understood. Either they get it...or they don't.
One of my favorite stories to illustrate this is Degas and De Kooning. Edvard Degas was known fairly well, in his time to be somewhat of a woman hater. He did not suffer fools lightly. And uneducated women or women who thought that they could use their sexuality to get ahead were among he worst. And so, in his angst he painted them, in the lowliest of positions, crouching, squatting and sitting....doing the lowliest of things, bathing, cutting their toenails or brushing their hair. It was crass and somewhat vulgar in his time period. And everyone stood and pondered it and spoke of how he was able to bring beauty to such lowly stations. He has brought us down to our humblest of position and shown us the beauty in such simple moves.
Not what Degas had intended.
Then there is Willem De Kooning. The story goes that he was married at the time, but also was known to wantonly stray. His many affairs had led him into the bed of one woman who gave him a dose of his own medicine. He found her in bed with another woman. His anger was taken out in a series of paintings entitled Woman II through V. The woman are shown as fat, having sagging breasts, sharp teeth and to be staring off into the distance as if they have nothing to keep them occupied, just waiting for their next victim to come along. As such they portray women in a horrible light. Standing in a gallery and listening to the comments, or asking the questions of those pondering the painting you find great insight. "He must have been very angry." "They are not pretty pictures, are they?" "I wouldn't want to find a woman that looks like that." And thus you can only conclude that De Kooning was capable of conveying his full meaning at that moment...hatred of women. One need only ponder his painting to understand that is possessed anger, angst, a vile disposition that only sees women as bloodthirsty and wanton.
Not what Degas had intended.
Then there is Willem De Kooning. The story goes that he was married at the time, but also was known to wantonly stray. His many affairs had led him into the bed of one woman who gave him a dose of his own medicine. He found her in bed with another woman. His anger was taken out in a series of paintings entitled Woman II through V. The woman are shown as fat, having sagging breasts, sharp teeth and to be staring off into the distance as if they have nothing to keep them occupied, just waiting for their next victim to come along. As such they portray women in a horrible light. Standing in a gallery and listening to the comments, or asking the questions of those pondering the painting you find great insight. "He must have been very angry." "They are not pretty pictures, are they?" "I wouldn't want to find a woman that looks like that." And thus you can only conclude that De Kooning was capable of conveying his full meaning at that moment...hatred of women. One need only ponder his painting to understand that is possessed anger, angst, a vile disposition that only sees women as bloodthirsty and wanton.
In comparing and contrasting De Kooning and Degas you may find that you much prefer to look at a Degas. It is a nicer picture. It is pretty. However, you would have to find that Degas did not succeed where De Kooning had. De Kooning was able to show forth his emotions and communicate them quite clearly, whereas Degas missed the mark. We are all the richer for it, but still he was a misunderstood artist.
Recently, in Managua, Nicaragua, a young man by the Guillermo Vargas showed an exhibit called "Exposición N° 1". This exhibit focused on poverty and the situation in Costa Rica. In the exhibit there was a dog chained to a wall. As the story goes, the dog was already in a state of starvation and weakened and it is undetermined if the dog died while on display or if he escaped and later died. It is only known that the dog did die of starvation. The people's perception of the exhibit was not one that shed light on poverty and cast a sympathetic eye toward the Costa Rican people, but rather one that case an eye of cruelty toward the artist and the gallery for choosing to put on such an exhibit. In this case, the artist failed in his attempt to connect with his audience a message that had great importance to him. In fact, he did quite the opposite and incited them against his work.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Vargas)
As a result the most imperative quality that a good artist can bring to their work is an intuitive knowledge of people and how to make them feel something. An artist that can reach deep into another individual and cause them to "feel" any emotion has a gift the one who can do it with something beautiful at the same time....possesses greatness.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Vargas)
As a result the most imperative quality that a good artist can bring to their work is an intuitive knowledge of people and how to make them feel something. An artist that can reach deep into another individual and cause them to "feel" any emotion has a gift the one who can do it with something beautiful at the same time....possesses greatness.
No comments:
Post a Comment