I think that art is big enough to encompass many different feelings and worldviews and that anyone who sees reality only as brutal, awful, etc. is walking around with blinders. Van Gogh certainly did not paint pictures of that kind of world, and his work is full of life and meaning. Yet in its time it also challenged the standards of beauty. Surely it is more complex than you're making it seem.
"...beauty is for girls & queers." Lovely sentiment. So, following that logic, "real" art is for boys & bigots. I feel sorry for any artist, who for the sake of self-aggrandizement, sticks his art up on a pedestal & makes absurd claims that any art that isn't like his art isn't art at all. Beauty can be equally as disturbing as ugly. Passion is a feeling we have toward/about something- expressionistic brush strokes is technique. Expressionistic artists have no claim to superiority over an artist who works in glazes. It's a question of individual preference.
As Tetchist said, art isn't supposed to do anything. It is whatever the artist hopes it will be. It is whatever the viewer makes of it. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who claims to be an artist, but then turns around & insults any style or technique that doesn't reflect his particular approach, truly has no understanding of what art is about, is profoundly narrow-minded & probably a raging narcissist.
illastratFeatured By OwnerNov 10, 2012Professional Traditional Artist
Art suppose to reveal the true nature of reality at its core. Reality is brutal, precarious, abrasive and hideous. So by simple deduction art MUST follow suit. Sentimental art avoids every nuance of existence by depicting escapist systems intended on propelling the art-taster against false notions of reality. THIS ACT IS NOT ARTISTIC. Art is the awareness of nihilistic forms pressed against space that induces horror, hate, brutality. Save the sentimental shit for birthday cards.
Your perspective on reality is not taken as a universal given. There is more than enough room for competing views and perspectives that are every bit as valid as your own, because the experiences that lead others to those competing perspectives were arrived at as honestly as you come by yours.
Don't make the mistake of pigeonholing such a broad subject as art into such a singularly narrow definition.
illastratFeatured By OwnerNov 11, 2012Professional Traditional Artist
But your art isn't happy and carefree...at all (its very good btw). Obviously you agree, if not verbally or consciously, then subconsciously and in practice. If you are a fine artist you must reveal reality's core. If not you are failing yourself as an artist.
I see art as a way to reveal things about how the artist sees his or her subject. What it reveals is as individual and personal as your art is to you, but it won't necessarily reveal the same thing to everyone. Why should the merit of everyone elses' revelation be weighed against your own personal experience? I learn about others when viewing their art, and I'm not bothered by the fact that someone else gets something out of their experience that doesn't match my own. In fact, I celebrate the diversity in viewpoints of the world of art. I learn by exposing myself to the artistic experience of people who see the world differently than I do, even if I end up disagreeing with it, I still learn something about someone else.
Thank you. What I disagree with is not darkness in art (I actually prefer a little darkness & weirdness), it's that it's the end all, be all. Everybody is entitled to their own reality, and if their reality is joyful & full of light- good for them. No darkness without light, and to proclaim that one end of the spectrum (& all that exists in between) is somehow more artistically legitimate, I personally feel, is inaccurate. To suggest that because I like/prefer a streak of darkness & weirdness in my art, that that's what all art should be to be truly art, would be a self-stroking conceit. The Art Nouveau movement was born of artists rebelling against the notion of being told what art had to be- & much of the movement is quite beautiful- it's an aesthetic that influences my art heavily. There are certainly "darker" Nouveau artists, like Jan Toorop (also considered a Symbolist)[link] . My favorite Symbolist artist, Fernand Khnoppf does what I aspire to do, combine exquisite technique with vaguely disturbing imagery [link]. As an artist, I don't feel like there's anything I "must" do. As an artist, frankly, I rebel against such a notion that art has to be any one thing, or do any one thing. I do puke a little at the notion that it has to go with the couch. I don't think it's within my purview to reveal Reality's core. Science changes reality twice a week. The only core I have any honest access to is my own, & through my art, I don't reveal it, it reveals itself.