What is art?

[Hawk]

My first topic!

I would like to ask - What makes a successful artist?

And what is the difference between a doodle and a masterpiece?

I know it’s been asked so many times before, and I have pondered over it in the past, but after listening to Secrets of the Beehive and reflecting on my own drawings, the question is burning in my mind again.

I hope someone can help…but if the following is a bit too dense to read, I completely understand. Just respond to the initial question. Once I’m out of this rut, I’ll probably look back and be confused too!

Anyway, what makes art? The first thing that sticks in my mind is something Mr Sylvian said about a great piece of art having the ability to heal. So are artists like doctors in their own field? Or perhaps counsellors? Psychics? Helping hands? I don’t know. Sometimes it seems to me, art can be a representation of the inner self…..in which case, it is like looking in a mirror. Which can sometimes be painful… but I think a certain degree of pain is very necessary in order to realise the pleasure more…..so perhaps it is ultimately healing if you stare at it long enough. But does that mean a great piece of art must hold your attention? What about those artworks that grab you immediately? Or quick lines, sounds or impressions that somehow say something that would take ages to put down in words? Or words that seem to defy all reason but somehow make one feel at ease or on edge, in love or in denial? Enlightened?

Perhaps ‘the artist’ simply gives cues, suggestions…for us to do the rest. Perhaps it is art without direct intentions or meanings, but with subtle hints or ambiguous memory-joggers, that is the most successful?

But ‘successful’ in what? Healing? How does the artist know it will heal, if what is taken from the artwork is ultimately up to the viewer or listener? Perhaps all humanity is united in its response to certain ‘cues’ and metaphors? But in which case, why can’t everyone be an artist – if they recognise these cues?

Can anyone be an artist? Is ‘art’ a learnt skill or an inherent gift? Or a mixture of both? Perhaps it’s not at all like being a doctor…

Perhaps it is more like being a translator – putting unseen ‘feelings,’ ‘thoughts,’ ‘impulses,’ ‘dreams…’ into physical manifestations? And the healing part comes later…or not at all…depending on the correlation between the listener’s mood/views/experience/circumstance upon listening… and that of the artist.

Does a ‘successful artist’, therefore, present a variety of landscapes from which to ‘catch’ the listener/viewer ‘at the right time? How important is continuity in art? Or the presence of the artist’s own personality, style or aesthetics? I’m sure, for example, I couldn’t listen to many of Mr Sylvian’s songs if they were sung with a different voice. Sometimes covers work. But most of the time do not. Especially if they are very unique to that particular artist.

In which case, is it important for an artist to be individually self-expressive as well as a translator of united emotions? Perhaps by ‘healing,’ Mr Sylvian also meant ‘healing’ to the artist themselves? I know my drawing has always been more therapeutic than anything else. It is only recently I realised it may even be worth showing my art to other people. I have always kept it to my self, or sometimes just thrown it away, as it was the process of doing it – or bringing ‘the inside out’ – that was important, not the finished product……….but then this completely contradicts what I thought before….

Perhaps art is never a ‘finished product’ – it is the process itself. I have always found working sketches and doodles fascinating… But, then, what earns them the title ‘doodle’ if they are never worked on again and if they speak volumes in just a few squiggles? Especially when something considered a ‘masterpiece’ says very little in comparison?

In which case, I believe art must be separated into two fields – its ability to communicate and its technical skill and beauty. Like people. Beautiful people with little on their minds, and ugly people with brains like Einstein. Best is a combination of both I suppose – beautiful and complex people. But then again, who am I to judge what these two things are? We all see ‘beauty’ and ‘intelligence’ very differently…….hm…….so much for my ‘unified mind of humanity’ theory….we are all different.

Perhaps artists just create the things they like, and the things that interest and inspire them, and hope they communicate to people of a similar disposition? And that is all? Nothing amazing about it…… But, then, why aren’t we all artists?

I think I’m going round in circles here, so if anyone has any fresh ideas to add…. I tend to overthink things to a point where I have a hundred more questions than when I started!

Oh! Maybe that’s it – an artist puts all this – all these words – into one picture? Simplified. So I don’t have to think about it and get confused. And that’s why it’s healing!

Maybe………it doesn’t really matter anyway……….it’s just interesting. I guess to some people art really isn’t that important.

Or maybe it’s best just not to question it. And find the answer in the silence…or maybe not......

Hm. I think I’m going to get some lavendar tea and calm down…then do some painting.

Either way, I am glad to share this with someone. I am also not very good at writing...so perhaps someone can just write a summary line that makes sense. Thank you!

[inkinthewell]

This is a very tough one, Hawk. I don't think anybody could give you an answer. I mean: just one answer good for all purposes and all people.
There are different kinds of art: there is academical art, all that is very skillfully executed; art à-la-mode, works that everybody talks about and are worth loads of money; there is what I call arty-art, all those very intellectual works that refer to other works and styles; etcetera etcetera.
And there is Art.
There are some works that, although considered as masterpieces in their own categories, might have no value as Art. And, on the other hand, there are some works that can be skillfully done, be worth a lot of money, refer to anything you like and be downright great works of Art.
Artometers do not exist. Once in the dark tunnels of art, we can either grope our way about to the feeble light of our own judgement, or we can give up to the flashy neon-lights of critics & market and lose our way forever.
In my very personal vision of art (and life), one of the elements I value most is sincerity. Sometimes it may not be enough to produce Art, but it's enough to make me respect the artist, even when I know he's faking! (An example: Picasso. No doubt about his talent or the great revolution that cubism was. Yet, after visiting the Picasso Museum in Paris, I had the bad sensation that, after all, he had found an easy way of making money and had spent the last 40 years of his life playing at 'being Picasso'. A few years later I was lucky enough to see Guernica: it was so powerful and true that I cried like an idiot. So, when I got the chance, I went back to the Picasso Museum, and I really enjoyed myself this time, and I could almost hear Picasso say "Let's paint another one of those three-eyed two-nosed portrait so the art critics can have something to babble about!")
David Sylvian is definitely a sincere musician, searching for his own way, shedding his old skin, unashamed of his nakedness (ehm... this is only a metaphor, girls - please, DON'T DROOL!!), and never slipping on any convenient ready-made suit (unless there's a pair of white shoes, of course). I think that that's more than enough to make an Artist of him.

P.S. Sometimes there is absolutely no difference between doodles and masterpieces. Some sketches by Michelangelo and Leonardo are so full of life that there's no need to add more to them. And I've seen sketches by Matisse that are much better than any of his paintings. Even "She is not", with its 45 seconds, can be considered a musical doodle, yet it's a masterpiece. By the way, I tend to see Blemish as a gothic cathedral...

[inkinthewell]

I'd better get myself some tea too, now.

[Hawk]

Oh! Thank you inkinthewell! I realise I must have been looking at it intently through a magnifying glass - it's nice to have an overview.

I think I like the 'dark tunnels' - never know what's round the next corner! Sometimes it does feel like wandering about aimlessly though - like I've dropped my torch and, even if I know there are hundreds of magnificent things to see on the walls around me, I can't see them!! (if that makes sense)

Maybe.

Maybe the role of an artist is to pick my torch back up again.

But I think you're right, there are no certainties.

That is interesting what you write about sincerity. I think I am inclined to agree. I like pieces to have a soul and a passion and come right from the heart of the artist. Often it doesn't matter to me how technically well crafted a piece is (except when I am in a mood that searches for a perfect kind of beauty, my eyes are very pleased by such pieces then). Maybe I like to feel a connection with the artist as well as the art itself. When I paint or draw or make a film, it feels like a part of me. Like an invisible formless limb amputated and glaring back at me with all the essence of my inner reflection at the time of the amputation.

(Hm now I have a new idea for a painting...)

I like it when artists do that. It's interesting to look in the mirror and see a different reflection....or perhaps to become a reflection of someone else and mime their actions for a while.

I think one of the reasons I asked the initial question is I have never really considered myself an 'artist' up until recently. I think maybe I've always been led to assume that art was a trade, and one had to be making money or gaining recognition out of one's art in order to be considered a man of that trade. My father used to say art must have a purpose......and I never really did my drawings with any purpose in mind....I just felt I had to draw.....so I didn't consider it to be art.

I then learnt about doodles on the first year of my university course and how, sometimes, they are very valuable expressions. I started to see myself as a 'doodler' as that's what my drawings seemed to be - expressions. I could never really physically laugh or smile or cry - but I could in my drawings.

But when I showed my drawings to others they said they were anything but 'doodles.' And it made me confused for a while.....until I realised...perhaps....I was an artist. And my 'art' was in creating art without meaning to.

It is strange. Thank you for your input to my discussion.

(Oh - I love 'She Is Not' - sometimes I wish it was longer but then truly I don't think it could be any better)

[Tin Bird]

Pollock was the first ``all-over'' painter, pouring paint rather than using brushes and a palette, and abandoning all conventions of a central motif. He danced in semi-ecstasy over canvases spread across the floor, lost in his patternings, dripping and dribbling with total control. He said: ``The painting has a life of its own. I try to let it come through.'' He painted no image, just ``action'', though ``action painting'' seems an inadequate term for the finished result of his creative process. Lavender Mist is 3 m long (nearly 10 ft), a vast expanse on a heroic scale. It is alive with colored scribble, spattered lines moving this way and that, now thickening, now trailing off to a slender skein. The eye is kept continually eager, not allowed to rest on any particular area. Pollock has put his hands into paint and placed them at the top right-- an instinctive gesture eerily reminiscent of cave painters who did the same. The overall tone is a pale lavender, maide airy and active. At the time Pollock was heiled as the greatest American painter, but there are already those who feel his work is not holding up in every respect.

[Tin Bird]

"The fact that people break down and cry when confronted with my pictures shows that I can communicate those basic human emotions.. the people who weep before my pictures are having the same religious experience I had when painting them. And if you say you are moved only by their color relationships then you miss the point." Mark Rothko

[Tin Bird]

Miró was among the first artists to develop automatic drawing as a way to undo previous established techniques in painting, and thus, with André Masson, represented the beginning of Surrealism as an art movement. However, Miró chose not to become an official member of the Surrealists in order to be free to experiment with other artistic styles without compromising his position within the group. He pursued his own interests in the art world, ranging from automatic drawing and surrealism, to expressionism and Color Field painting.

Miró's oft-quoted interest in the assassination of painting is derived from a dislike of bourgeois art of any kind, used as a way to promote propaganda and cultural identity among the wealthy. Specifically, Miró responded to Cubism in this way, which by the time of his quote had become an established art form in France. He is quoted as saying "I will break their guitar," referring to Picasso's paintings, with the intent to attack the popularity and appropriation of Picasso's art by politics. [1]

[Hawk]

Wow thank you graciously Tin Bird! I will think about everything you have written...and then maybe I will have some more questions!

Makes me wish I'd studied more art history. Always time to learn I suppose!

Just found 'Lavendar Mist' .........for some reason I really like it and I'm not quite sure why........

Rothko - what a fantastic quote. Funny how I don't actually like his paintings....they don't really do anything for me.....and yet I can still respect and appreciate him as an artist. I believe his art has a very important place in this world.

....

I will think some more.