Search

May-Day May-Day: Art Today

Miriam
May 1, 2016
5 min read

Creativity was first breathed into man/woman at the beginning of time by the Great God himself, who is the definition of all things good. We are made to create. But just as there is good, there is bad, including things that we've, in our imperfect humanness, have created.

I must warn you now that this post is going to be more of a rant than anything else, but bare with me because I believe there is a lot of importance to what I have to say.

Hmm... "importance to what I have to say".... That's a great beginning to this blog. There's importance to what each individual has to say! The question is, who is listening?

In the magnificently vast world of art, each person who calls him/herself an artist is trying to say something through his/her art. But did you know, that those passing through an art gallery/museum spend an average of just five seconds looking at each piece of work. That's not "listening" very well to what the artist has to say.

Here's a story:

The annual Turner Prize winner at Tate Britain (art contest) in 2001, was awarded to Martin Creed whose art exhibit was an empty room with lights that flickered on and off in 5 second intervals. Other artists at the event were extremely upset that something so odd and so simple was the winning piece. Some even thought it was "an affront to real artists with real talents".

And one woman in particular explained "at worst, this is an electrical work. At best, it's philosophy."

Yet others expressed Creed as a pure, extreme artist and enthusiasts had called it a statement against the clutter and consumerism in the world.

If we look at this story further, we'll find what Martin Creed was thinking when he made his prize-winning art. Before people even saw his exhibition, he warned them not to look for too much meaning. After, he had stated that his work is about the qualities of nothing. Nothing! If the artist himself had said this, why were so many people trying to deeply philosophize it?! Here is my answer:

Because modern art has crept it's way into being less about technical skills, and more about emotion, and because people do not like things that they do not understand, they try to put meaning to something, even if it has none.

For example, in the classical period of art, artists focused on improving upon the master artists that came before them. Everything was about beauty and inspiration

through a realistic representation. The impressionists were the first to "rebel" against the classical techniques, and their works were still great! They were still realistic representations, but with different technique. However, artistic standards slowly began to decline and eventually there became no standards. Why is it that a work of art that looks like this:

sells for more than a work that looks like this:

Why? Because art has become solely about personal expression. You can't tell anyone they're wrong because everyone is their own person. Modern art has become about being different and making a statement, getting a reaction from the viewers, especially if it's a 'bad' reaction such as anger or shock. Perhaps this is because they need the shock-factor to engage the public for a longer period of time, since every artist wants more than just 5 seconds. The fact that even in the classical period statements were being made through art, even while keeping visual excellence, is the main reason modern art is the way it is (which is not based on making a statement just on it's own). People want reactions.

This is what Martin Creed had explained about himself as an artist:

"My work is about 50 per cent what I make of it and 50 per cent what people make of it. Meanings are made in people's heads. I can't control them."

"I think that the best things get under people's skin, make them remember them. People aren't stupid. They know what's fake and what's not. They respond to things. Art is just things in the world, usually an arrangement of colour and shapes. It's people who have the feelings and the reactions."

According to these statements, it seems obvious that Creed agrees that art does not have any specific standard if it is "...just things in the world, usually an arrangement of colour and shapes...".

We've lost our touch with creativity because we've become more concerned about what other people think. Yet we are told that no one is supposed to care what anyone thinks! This is the mistake.

If I am to truly change the world through my art, I cannot do it by simply thinking of something totally random that no one has thought of before. I cannot simply make something and say that it is art since I was expressing myself while making it. And I certainly cannot change the world by telling everyone through my art that they need to think the same thing as me, because everyone is thinking the same in terms of "convince everyone I'm right and don't let anyone tell me I'm wrong" mentality.

And this is because then everything becomes art and makes it next to impossible to do well as an artist. The art that has full talent, technique, beauty, and can even make a statement through all the attributes mentioned, will continue to become more lost unless a new mentality is taught. That is, the mentality that goes against the saying "the beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

What if artists practiced ALL art? What if modern artists decided to allow the focus on them to recede and the focus of lost art step forward? I think we'd learn more about the world that way, instead of only the bold, crude, and offensive making it to the news. Perhaps viewers would spend more time admiring the beauty of a painting, a sculpture, a drawing, etc if it had the talent, the technique, and the inspiration that modern art lacks.

Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder.

As Jakob Rosenburg put it:

“Artistic value” or “quality” in a work of art is not merely a matter of personal opinion but to a high degree a matter of common agreement among artistically sensitive and trained observers and to a high degree objectively traceable. ¶ Our value judgment is a composite of “subjective” and “objective” elements. “Subjective” I call those which are the purely personal response of an individual; “objective,” those which are agreed upon by trained observers and therefore meet with general acceptance.

According to this, we need people really good at art to be the judges of art. And those who are really good at art set the true standards of visual excellency, allowing them to be the judges and allowing others to push themselves (sometimes outside of their comfort zones) to accomplish higher excellency, and by doing so, change the world's standards for art, AND creates a better appreciative attitude toward art from those that do not have the talent and skills.

Therefore, we need a refresher on the importance of art to truly understand how to change and why.

(That'll be my next post! So stay tuned!)