I have been full of doubt lately. Doubt doubt doubt.
I am feeling a severe lack of personal connections and am yearning desperately for lines of communication to become re-established with certain people. Matt has a phone now, at least, so there's one. It's not the same though. I need Murphy's and two pitchers of PBRs and for us to slap the table and wildy gesticulate our intensity towards everything involving ourselves and the world around us.
I have been revisiting a mild-obsession in regards to another certain person. Which I'm trying to get over. Though I don't even know if I want to. But it'd probably be good for me.
I have been entering the strange world of abstract art. I have no idea whether to classifiy my paintings as "art" or just "Summer's experiments in X-Treme finger painting." But how would I go about classifying anything I make as "legitimate?" Must I prove my "legitimacy" in the eyes of others? And if one of the goals is to prove it's legitimacy, am I thinking more about the effects of my creativity than upon my creativity itself? Or is that all ART is -- legitimizing your creativity in front of others? If I fail to receive some sort of outside connection, is my work de-valued? Or must I create my own value of it? Is art a struggle for self-expression or a struggle for the creation of connection with the viewer? Am I revealing something about myself or to someone else? Or am I supposed to come up with some happy marriage of the two?
aarrgghh.
Pretty much all I know is I can figure out whether or not I'm finished with a painting, though I've no idea how I ever reach that conclusion.
THINGS TO REMEMBER:
Being miserable doesn't make you any less wrong, but being happy doesn't make you any more so, either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
legitimacy of art is already skewed because we place art on a scale of social hierarchy. legitimacy of art in the visual arts world of high art and society usually means that your work is sold, and that is placing a monetary value on your art, giving it a defined value.
ReplyDeleteas an artist, i would say that you are responsible for defining your audience. if you don't feel like your art is meant for other people, then it doesn't have to be. if it is meant for a certain type of people, you generally make decisions on who you show it to or who has access to your art in particular. if it is meant for yourself, then you place yourself as the viewer, which means that if it isn't pleasing to you or feels complete, then it might mean you have more work to do.
I would say that legitimacy is based on personal satisfaction with the work. There are some things that you like more than others, and just because it may not have the selected range of the elite that a gallery might, it doesn't discount it as a piece of art. Remember that a lot of artists aren't successful in their lifetime because they are thinking ahead of the curve.
I would say that art is an exercise in creation, a work in progress, a way to understand the world, a way to understand yourself, and any other number of definitions. The minute that art is defined is the minute that someone will defy that definition in the name of art, which is where we are now in the scheme of art history.
i agree with kristi here 100%.
ReplyDeletei was going to say something like:
"re: legitimacy of art, i'm all, 'fuck it, do what you wawnt'"
only kristi put it more accurately and more eloquently, so i'll just ditto that.