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.
illastratFeatured By OwnerNov 4, 2012Professional Traditional Artist
WTF is your problem. Yesterday you sent me a note on how good my gallery is but now you are saying i make sloppy work. To me beauty is for girls and queers. I make brute, gritty, pessimistic, cynical, hopeless art. Yes, this is not one of my more conventional or even successful paintings. But it conveys an emotion of rebellion again the prissy bourgeois art of modernists while at the same time cutting through kitsch aesthetics straight to the raw bleeding pulp of avant-garde anti-beauty. But yeah, I HATE beautiful art. I illustrate the caustic nature of life by strategically creating horrific forms in space. My art is meant to be disturbing and even ugly to a certain degree. But after you settle from the vomit-inducing vertigo experienced at the initial sight of my art you will enigmatically fall in love with it due to its utter horror inducing nature.
My life experience has not led me to the conclusion that hopelessness is the natural order of existence. Your work does not resonate with me, perhaps because of that, and it's always presumptuous and more than a little arrogant for the artist to tell his audience how he expects they will receive his work.
In spite of that, I think your work is valid and well executed for what it is you're trying to say. In that sense, it's good. It just doesn't speak to me.
And I tend not to like works that are all rainbows and unicorns either. The stuff I appreciate most contains contrasts that are neither perfectly 'pretty' nor abjectly horrifying, but strike a balance in the contrast.
Sloppy isn't necessarily a bad thing. In hindsight, it was probably a poor choice of words, sketchy or chaotic would've been better.
While you claim to be moving away from the "prissy bourgeois" and cut through the "kitsch aesthetics", there's a lot of clear influence in your work from that which you hate. Your work shows a lot of deKooning, Monet, and African Picasso.
I personally find the "sloppy" sketchiness and chaos to be beauty in and of itself. However, you're not really creating something disturbing and ugly, nor anything shocking, because that style and subject matter have been pretty much fully explored 100 years ago. There isn't really anything horrific in your work. Shock art, or something along the lines of Damien Hirst's work is something I think you should look into. Just honest advice.
I find it interesting what passes for abrasive and challenging. Artists who are sloppy and lacking in technique are gritty and passionate. I think there's a big difference between beautiful art with challenging content, and art that's just hard to look at. Most people use style as an excuse for bad foundations. It's all subjective. Don't put yourself in a box, and never stop learning.
The definitions of beauty and horror are unique to the individual. For instance, I find this image far more interesting than your painting, but as for arguing it's techinique.. I'm not looking to offend you, but personally, I find your anatomy and the environment hard to look at. With proper anatomy and better perspective, I would probably consider this beautiful. It certainly doesn't horrify me. With that said, it's still an interesting piece, and I'd rather see this in a gallery instead of a sailboat.
illastratFeatured By OwnerNov 4, 2012Professional Traditional Artist
but speaking of anatomy, most realist artists use references, grids, projectors. I used my brain with no reference. Also as for the enviroment, its empirical perspective. I think the claustrophobic nature envokes anxiety. And correct anatomy would complete fuck up that drawing. As for the painting i made it yesterday. I just paint from my heart. Other then limited color theory, thick over thin, lean over fat, light over dark i just paint. I know other artists and some people will say its sloppy. However, I am comfortable with my eye. I don't stop painting until I like my result. I am not comfortable with the results of this but its not the worst. But yeah, i think i have a very soulful style and i sell alot so somebody has to like it.