Blog

            Art is inherently subjective. Guidelines exist that may suggest underlying principles of design, order, emphasis, contrast, and so on, but ultimately all choices come down to the individual artist and what he or she decides to include or exclude from any given work. We can look at the history of art for examples of what might constitute good design or quality art, but even here choice will dictate one’s preference over that of another. For example, it is easy to see that the early Greek kouros figures are rigid and immobile like the ancient Egyptian sculptures they were patterned after. A few decades later and we find examples of graceful figures in Greek art that exhibit contraposto and a sensuality that did not exist in the early sculptures. Even so, some might prefer the solidity of the kouros figures because they are truer to the medium in which they are carved.

            One of my early teachers was a semi-abstract painter who worked with simplified flat colored shapes in his representation of inhabitants of the North Carolina coastal region where he grew up and lived all of his life. He used to talk about Rembrandt as being an excellent painter, but he qualified this by also saying that he and Rembrandt did not speak to each other, meaning that his work was so totally different from the Renaissance master. My teacher saw himself as a modernist, and his style reflected his personal choices in art.

            Since the end of the nineteenth century and the shift into the modern age, many artists increasingly challenged popular notions about what art is and what art can be. One can still hear today similar remarks from viewers looking at abstract paintings that may have been made by viewers looking at early examples of Impressionism or Post-Impressionistic art. What is it? What does it mean? Anybody could paint that – and so on. The uneducated public tends to have an understanding that art is a picture that resembles something in reality. This is a perfectly legitimate point of view, and one could easily argument the point with hundreds of examples from roughly six hundred years of art history.

            The modernist perspective also has a cogent argument against literalism and in favor of abstraction and expressive statements that create a distinct reality that is solely that of art. In other words, art is not a substitute for anything, a copy of anything, or a re-fabrication of anything. It simply is whatever it is.

            Very likely there will always be some who will claim that a poem has to rime in order to be considered poetry, music has to be sonorous and melodic to be considered music, and that paintings must resemble something in order to be considered art. That is okay, and I would support their right to their opinions. At the same time, I might feel a bit saddened knowing that those individuals are limiting themselves from experiencing a great deal of poetry, music, and art that is powerful, transformative, and communicative in its own right. On the positive side, though, art has become quite expansive compared to that of five hundred years ago. This is not to say that contemporary art is any better (or vice-versa). Each is unique and is there to be savored for what it offers. The audience makes its choice just as the artist makes his or hers. Personally, I relish the range of options that are available for it just makes my experience of art that much richer and abundant.