[Previous entry: "A Brief History of the Rhythmic Figure"] [Next entry: "CAPC, or Life in the Grip of Art"]
12/21/2009: "Art vs. Karma, Picasso vs. Van Gogh"
Art and karma are playing a game...
If you care to be recognized and esteemed by the art establishment, I think that the whole idea is to first convince the art community that you know what classic art is, that you know how to be an "academic" artist.
Once you have proved your expertise in the formalities and rituals of classic and academic art, once you have been ordained into the consensus of the art establishment, you can more or less do whatever you want and there will always be at least one art critique that will find some rational and artistic justification for that.
I can only assume that sometimes, even the artist himself will not understand what that critique is talking about.
What is art?
I believe that most works of art are the outcome of inspiration and intuition, while as the rational explanation, especially if you focus on the minute details of compositional architecture, color scheme, formation, etc. comes only after you have already expressed you're intuition to the fullest.
I guess this could be the reason why Picasso experienced and said: "If you know in advance what it is that you are going to do, what is then the point of doing it? You better do something else". And if you don't know in advance what it is that you're going to do, how can you explain it then? Hence, the analyzing commentary of the work, along with its artistic justifications and principled explanations arrive after the work is already finished.
So actually, a certain creation will be considered by the consensus as art, if their judging perception of the one who created it is of an artist. Once that point of view is shared by the consensus, this person will become an artist and his creation will turn into art. They will find the way to explain whatever it is that he or she did.
But if that person did not receive recognition as an artist, his work will be disregarded, no matter how well it could have been explained had they only wanted to bother over it a little.
Who is an artist?
So now the question is asked: who is an artist? Well, that would be one who is recognized as an artist. And who might that be? One who's karma designated him to be a recognized artist.
I don't think that there is any doubt today that Van Gogh was no less of an artist than Picasso, Dali and all the rest of them that succeeded during their life times, but for some obscure reason he remained unknown, unappreciated, poor, sick and miserable for his entire short life. He was intended to arrive to the world in a certain era with certain humanity that will not recognize his genius and capabilities until it was definitely too late for him to enjoy it.
Does that mean that during his life Van Gogh was not an artist? Subjectively, perhaps he was an artist - within the realms of his own private world perhaps he defined himself as an artist and felt like one, but objectively speaking he was not. The contemporary consensus of the art establishment and the collective of society did not give him the recognition for being one, and God doesn't care anyway - it's all the same to him and these are the only objectives I can think of.
Van Gogh lived twice: once his real miserable life and the second time as the suffering genius artist image in the minds of millions, in the collective consciousness of humanity for the past 70 years or so, and you can trust me for saying, that he sure as hell did not all of a sudden turn into an artist after he died - what changed was humanity's collective thought patterns - the observer awakened to realize the truth.
The pre-designated unknown pathology
Van Gogh's karma changed only many years after his death, but it could have been different also - he could have been successful in his life just as Picasso could have failed and been scorned instead of having been admired so much. Would that have diminished his worthiness for such status, fame and recognition?
We know now that it is indeed so. But who judges these things? Art does? Art does not judge and so doesn't God. God makes the artist, society makes him successful, but all for a reason, always.
Replies: 22 Comments
on Thursday, January 20th, Scott Allerdice said
I totally agree with you.
software development
on Saturday, January 8th, mcse dumps said
thanks
on Sunday, May 23rd, Lydia said
I agree with Mark, its not that important what the experts think - it is important what you make out of it...
on Sunday, March 14th, clay said
Van Gogh not an artist. Miserable because he wasn't famous. This consensus driven mess we call art nowadays doesn't touch him. Every painting he made was a dismissal of everything you stand for.
on Tuesday, February 23rd, Christian Stebner said
What is art? A very complex topic which I have thought about a lot.On the one hand art expresses the artist�s sensibility and it should evoke emotions that make me feel something. On the other hand money and status play a big role as well. Especially for the artist it is of course important that he or she finds some kind of recognition not only by words when people say that the painting is beautiful but also through purchases. It�s not really an easy way at all......
on Wednesday, February 17th, Myron said
I have been painting seascapes for several years and all i hear from people that view my work is, "will you give that picture to me?". I can't afford to give my art away. The other thing I see is a lack of appreciation for the true artist since the immediacy of the internet.
We are all competing with the walmart prints that are cheap and tacky looking as will.
on Thursday, February 11th, Jackie M said
Hi, I was hoping that somebody on here could point me in the right direction. I have been looking for places to sign my kids up for art classes and have heard good things about Kidz Art http://kidzart.com but am still unsure. Does anyone have any advice? Thank you.
on Friday, February 5th, Connie said
Many great artists get the recognition they deserve,however there are many who are just as talented and do not know the right people. Just like a lot of things in life. I think now a days success has more to do with who you know rather than what you know. Unfortunately.
on Wednesday, February 3rd, suvarna said
Maybe it matters where you are exhibiting your art works. On the street, very few people will look to see what qualifications you have, while in a gallery its all another story. People like a bit of drama about the 'artist'...maybe this drama is what makes an artist more than anything.
on Friday, January 29th, MARMALADE-ART said
Of course a lot of what has been said reminds me of an old fable "The Emperors Clothes"
on Monday, January 18th, Andrew said
It just takes luck to make a living off it, and enough work to be able to call yourself an artist. Get it into the mind of the public? That's something that takes real talent, and people with some charge a lot for their services. That's why the trust fund kids are pretty much all successful with their art. Doesn't mean they make a living off it.
on Saturday, January 16th, Dmitri said
I think these days a lot of people have no idea what art stands for. Many can't even see it. Just look at the local cofee shops and what the hang in there. :)
on Wednesday, January 13th, Honky said
Thanks. A very interesting read. I agree with most of the points made.
In my opinion, there is a walled-garden in the art-world; the gate-keepers tend to keep the gates closed, until they see acceptance by another member of the art establishment. None of these gatekeepers want to risk appearing foolish by sticking their necks out - it's simply easier to keep the gates closed.
I haven't included hyperlinks, as I don't want to be accused of spamming, however I've written one or two posts that explore broadly similar themes ["Visual arts censorship", "Perversely, the art establishment discriminates against creatives", and "Lessons from the School of Saatchi"], which are accessible through my website blog should anyone wish to read similar content.
Dickson Brown
on Saturday, December 26th, findigart said
Yes Lolita, however, so many things we have gotten to see as pretty or not, necessary or not, becoming or unbecoming, just on the basis of prior conditioning implanted into our mind by force of society's impression of things.
we hardly ever really make our own minds about anything at all.
so also with art. what I was saying is that judging by others impression of success and it's influence on their perception of beauty and quality, quality art can many times be ignored while as shallow art be considered as phenomenon. and once the public opinion is judged, than it's hard to see the reality as it is...
on Saturday, December 26th, Lolita Martini Glasses said
I think that anything can be described as art. It all depends on how someone looks at it. Just like that saying 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.
on Friday, December 25th, findigart said
Tell me Adrian have you ever tried to "get ordained" into the "establishment" of those who define what art is? have you ever approached galleries with an attempt to get a contract or formal recognition?
on Friday, December 25th, findigart said
Joy, indeed nice words, well put. However, I experience discouragement sometimes (not that it stops me) for not being able to live off my art and having to do things that I don't love...
And karma is a fantastic belief when seen through the eyes of the mundane, however once the sight of eternity opens up, things take on a different perspective.
on Friday, December 25th, findigart said
Adrian, ma main man :-) I am fine more or less, you know, as much as life allows me to be and as much as I allow life to allow me...or whatever :-)
The words you say are again fine crafting of language my friend :-) lucidly phrased - I have nothing to add or subtract.
And how are you?
on Friday, December 25th, findigart said
Many of of do care what they think... that's the essence of the misery of having an "image"... :-)
on Tuesday, December 22nd, Joy said
Karma is the fatalistic belief that you get what you deserve. I have known too many great artists who have been ignored and shock artists embraced as geniuses to believe in karma. Van Gogh's work was only recognized after his desperate widowed sister-in-law displayed them en mass. So the lesson is to keep creating and keep showing your work, don't please the public but please your muse and you will do fine.
on Tuesday, December 22nd, Adrian said
Findigart and how are you these days?
Maybe it matters where you are exhibiting your art works. On the street, very few people will look to see what qualifications you have, while in a gallery its all another story. People like a bit of drama about the 'artist'...maybe this drama is what makes an artist more than anything.
No man is an island, so the establishment, whatever form that takes, will be the determining factor for ones recognition as an artist.
Myself, as an example, without formal fine art training and self taught in ceramic art and craft. Have experienced recognition in many ways...although not officially by the art establishment. Still I continue because this is what I do.
on Monday, December 21st, Mark Schwing said
12-21-09
I disagree completely that you have to prove anything. I think it takes guts, determination, perseverance and some attitude.
Who cares what the "experts" think!
