I have never thought of myself as an artist. Artists paint pictures don't they ? Oh, there are many other types of artists, I know that, but I don't fit into any of those categories. The case could be made that any creation of man is art. The defining factor would have to be the appreciation of that art. When it is admired and understood by others to the point that it is desired, that is art. Well, it is recognized as art. Anything less than that is just a creation. New creations sometimes become art and then become refined. Why the new is recognized is the mystery of creation. Consider something as simple as Andy Warhol painting his Campbell soup can. I still don't get why that is so valuable, I don't understand the art. Good visual presentation of the object but nothing beyond that. I can admire it but don't understand it. Picasso is credited with " inventing " cubism. For reasons that are mysterious to me, it became popular, desired and appreciated as an entire new field of art. I wouldn't give you a dime for it on its' own merits. I wonder though if that is a learned thing, or something taught. What I mean is we have to learn to appreciate things from our own experiences. Enjoyment is a personal thing. Can we be taught to enjoy something ? We are certainly subject to influence. Being told that something is wonderful, great, or genius by people we admire would have an impact. I just wonder if the pretense of understanding is employed in these things. I'm supposed to believe that Picasso was a genius painter, everybody knows that, so I agree. That isn't the way I am however, I will tell you, unapologetically, I don't like his paintings. I would rather have a Rockwell. He is an artist though, I wouldn't deny that.
Thinking about this I wonder what art I possess. I believe we all have art within us, the ability to create. Unfortunately for most of us we try more to imitate an accepted art form than create a new one. The real question is, is that a conscious effort ? Did Picasso set out to invent cubism ? I rather doubt that. That he suffered from some mental illness is without question. Did it stem from that ? That is a mystery, the mystery of creation. I would think one has to be confident enough to just display their art. A willingness to present your creation for critics ? We all know the " masters " and it doesn't hurt so much when we fall short of that mark. The casual remark, I'm no Rembrandt, signifies you are aware of your abilities. But to present a completely unique art and have it rejected opens one up to an entirely different reaction, ridicule. Ridicule is a dismissive action. Strangely, a great deal of this " art " isn't appreciated until after the death of the one who created it. It is the, you don't know what you have until it is gone syndrome. Is it only then that others gain an understanding of that art ? How can that be ? A mysterious thing indeed.
I am not trained in any one particular art. I have no degree in literature, science or any other discipline. I create whatever I create using whatever knowledge and experience I have. Some of this has to be inherent. You can't learn to be Picasso or play the guitar like Eric Clapton. That is what I mean about inherent abilities. Where that ability may come from is another mystery. God given is the usual explanation. Each of us are unique and so should our art be also. We are all artists. What we create defines our lives. It isn't always visible to us in our lifetime. What follows lies in darkness, yet we talk of seeing the light. The light is understanding. Mysterious ? It has all been explained, you just have to believe in it. Like art.
Thinking about this I wonder what art I possess. I believe we all have art within us, the ability to create. Unfortunately for most of us we try more to imitate an accepted art form than create a new one. The real question is, is that a conscious effort ? Did Picasso set out to invent cubism ? I rather doubt that. That he suffered from some mental illness is without question. Did it stem from that ? That is a mystery, the mystery of creation. I would think one has to be confident enough to just display their art. A willingness to present your creation for critics ? We all know the " masters " and it doesn't hurt so much when we fall short of that mark. The casual remark, I'm no Rembrandt, signifies you are aware of your abilities. But to present a completely unique art and have it rejected opens one up to an entirely different reaction, ridicule. Ridicule is a dismissive action. Strangely, a great deal of this " art " isn't appreciated until after the death of the one who created it. It is the, you don't know what you have until it is gone syndrome. Is it only then that others gain an understanding of that art ? How can that be ? A mysterious thing indeed.
I am not trained in any one particular art. I have no degree in literature, science or any other discipline. I create whatever I create using whatever knowledge and experience I have. Some of this has to be inherent. You can't learn to be Picasso or play the guitar like Eric Clapton. That is what I mean about inherent abilities. Where that ability may come from is another mystery. God given is the usual explanation. Each of us are unique and so should our art be also. We are all artists. What we create defines our lives. It isn't always visible to us in our lifetime. What follows lies in darkness, yet we talk of seeing the light. The light is understanding. Mysterious ? It has all been explained, you just have to believe in it. Like art.
No comments:
Post a Comment