What is Art?
Ask a dozen artists what art is and they will each give a different answer. Some say it is about making a name in the art world of New York or Paris. Others say it is measured by the price people will pay for the work. Still others complain that the public doesn’t appreciate true genius, which has no price. The dictionary says: “art is manipulation of things by human skill to answer the purpose intended. In this sense art stands opposed to nature.” I’d bet that the grand landscape painters like John Constable or Albert Bierstadt would disagree with Webster on that definition.
I think art is anything that affects the mood of the viewer. I came to that conclusion while wandering through the Hirshhorn Museum during my lunch break from a particularly bad morning at work. Out of the corner of my eye I saw a single plaster leg sticking out of the wall horizontally that was mounted about one foot above the floor. The pun still makes me chuckle, and I have no idea about the artist’s intent, but it altered my mood enough to lighten my afternoon at work.
Years later, I went to a huge exhibit of paintings by Willem_De_Kooning at the National Gallery. As I entered the fourth roomful of his early expressionistic works, I turned to my friend and said, “this is crap!” For a moment, you could have heard a pin drop. I held that attitude about de Kooning for months before realizing why I was wrong. I still don't like his work, but I must admit that it affected my mood (albeit negatively), so by my own definition, it is art. That concept has been very liberating for me as an artist, and it continues to guide my work.
Some of my paintings contain a social statement, and one or two pieces may be a bit disturbing, but most of my work reflects the beauty and harmony that I see all around me. I go to great lengths to achieve a feeling of unity in each painting, and have abandoned or modified many traditional watercolor techniques to do so. Much of the spontaneity, soft edges, and “looseness” found in my work are the result of painting upright on totally wet paper. I sacrifice control for the brilliant diffusions that can only come from letting paint mix on paper as it flows slowly down the page under the influence of gravity. There are no pencil marks because it is pointless to draw lines under drifting paint, and I find myself altering the design as I paint to take maximum advantage of those happy accidents that happen on wet paper. Under these conditions, I have to paint quickly enough to finish before the paint dries.
Clearly, no two of my paintings are ever alike, and I don’t do prints. The finished painting is a manifestation of my mood at the time and my feeling about the subject matter. Hopefully it will affect the viewer in a similar way, but thanks to de Kooning I know that it doesn’t matter. Still, I can’t help but wonder how Willem really felt about women given his disturbing images of them, but I no longer challenge his artistry.
Bobby Fisher
7 years ago
Please feel free to tell me your thoughts on the topic. Take a moment and post your comments here. Thanks --Bob
ReplyDeleteBob:
ReplyDeleteThere is a problem with your definition. Lots of things that are naturally occurring can "affect one's mood." Also, lots of things that are artificial, like drugs, food, lighting, etc., can also affect a mood. So while I don't disagree that powerful art is effective at changing one's emotional outlook, I don't think your definition goes far enough. For me, art is anything that moves from the mind into the world. That is a big category, and it holds nearly everything that anyone ever tried to pass off as art. I would say that even that stuff IS art. But the question we've got to answer is less "what is art," than "what is GOOD art?" There's lots of art that doesn't rise to the level of good. In fact, truly great art is rare. But to me, the conversation about what is and is not good in art. . . and in life. . . is the real point of it all, not the philosophical category game we all love to play.
I was reading an aesthetics book and happened on an explanation of the six principles of Chinese painting. Your work looks vaguely asian, and I think I remember you talking about some asian influences. Have you looked at that stuff? Here's a link to a wikipedia article on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_principles_of_Chinese_painting
Jeff LeMieux
You are correct, I have studied for a number of years with the Chinese master, Wo Yee Kee, who has now gone back to China. He is in his 80s now and I doubt that I'll see him again. He only paints in the traditional Sumi-e style. I have hundreds of "practice" drawings of bamboo, flowers, baby chics, etc that taught me the value of controling the water first, then loading the brush with at least three colors (or values of ink), and then making the simplest mark that captures the essence of the thing I'm trying to depict. The grinding of the ink is a time for contemplation of the Chi of the object before trying to convey the proper feeling. For example: Wisteria flower very soft so use rabbit hair brush and hold it lightly, but the vine is rough, so use horse hair brush, hold it firm but don't push hard, instead let the brush dance along the paper! The Chinese would not think of going back into the mark once made, just as I would not think of redoing my signature. I may have to put up a post on what constitutes a "beautiful mark." It ties into your idea about what is good art, and what is pretense. That should spur some discussion. Thanks again for the Wiki reference and your thoughtful feedback. It is just what I was hoping for from this blog.
ReplyDelete--Bob