When I think of art, I think of a bridge. On one side there is imagination, the other reality. Art is the bridge, or so it used to be.
I had recently taken a trip to Cincinnati and was given the opportunity to visit some of the major art museums there. As an artist myself, I have always enjoyed seeing what other people’s inner-worlds are like, because that is what I paint, my inner-world.
However, once I stepped through the doors of the museum, my heart instantly dropped. I wasn’t surrounded by visions of what people desired and dreamed of, but of pictures and sculptures yelling at me to believe the agendas they wanted to portray. It was almost as if I was no longer allowed to daydream about the art in front of me, but to either accept what they preached, or to leave and never look upon them again.
I continued to walk and gaze at the silent messages. I became more depressed as I went on, realizing I could have very well just stayed at my hotel, turned on the news, and gained the same messages from the art in that museum. It saddened me, because something I enjoy greatly about art is the ability to have, almost a silent conversation between the artist and myself. I never would have to ask them personally what they dreamed of, how they want to be seen, or how they see the world. I would only have to look at what they portrayed in their artwork. It would give me the opportunity to realize how similar many people are in their hopes and dreams of what life can be.
True art is many things to many people, but in all reality it is but one thing, a possibility.
"The principles of true art is not to portray, but to evoke.” - Jerzy Kosinski.
Art is to be a breakthrough, the first step to what could be. You cannot build a house without blueprints, and you cannot change a society without showing them first what it will look like after it has been changed. Art gives you the ability to look through another’s eyes, to see the world in what they dream it to be. Some may fight that dream, others leave beaming with hope over the realization that looking at life, from the artist’s perspective is a possibility, changing them forever. There’s a beauty in art, that one can choose to receive the message or not, and it comes from the artist’s willingness to engage in a conversation through art.
True art is the bridging of imagination and reality, and true imagination is never biased but open to all possibilities. However, I believe as a society we have lost that. We have lost the ability to see everything from all sides with an open mind. Politics has influenced many things in today’s age; parenting, schools, media, belief systems, and now art - one of the very few things that allowed us to see another’s thoughts through our own eyes and beliefs. One is no longer left to have a silent conversation with the artist through their vision, but instead is told to believe what the artist says, and if a spectator does not agree, it is the spectator who is deemed wrong.
Even though this new generation of art is depressing and hopeless, we still praise it for speaking the obvious of our corrupt society. Statues of distorted figures, paintings of not actual wars, but what provokes them, and artistic depictions of politics is what the media and masses call fine art. We live in a world that tells us we need to prove that what we believe is right, and that everyone else who has a different view is wrong.
I have been seeing lately that many liberal ideas are being pushed, especially through the medium of art.
Yet I do not see conservative ideas and morals being portrayed in art at all. It raises the question; Are all artists political stances liberal democratic? We know that this cannot be true, so why is it that we are only seeing one side of politics being represented in art? In fact, why would the republican or democratic stance be represented in art at all?
Art is supposed to be the representation of how the artist sees and feels about the world around them. Nevertheless, it seems that most artists must think very much alike on politics, or is it that the selection of art that we see is chosen for it’s message, not it’s beauty? With that being said, can we honestly call propaganda filled, agenda driven art, art at all? Or is it a new way of putting a headline story in sight of the masses to sway them one way or another? And is it honestly helping our society to do so with art?
We are constantly being bombarded with stories of war, national debt, and out breaks of violence over beliefs of how society should be. In all reality we might need the silent conversations we have with art and ourselves, because it will give us time to think and reflect on our beliefs and choices without the feeling of having to defend ourselves. Yet right now, we are eliminating that possibility with removing the painting of a dancing girl in the meadow, and replacing it with a statue of a distorted human figure said to represent today’s politicians.
The difference between the two art pieces is that one is subjective to the on lookers interpretation and one is to coerce the on looker with the artists beliefs. A girl can be dancing in a meadow for many reasons, she is sad and finds comfort in dancing in a space that feels open and free, she dances in the meadow because she can be free to be herself and express how she feels in the lonely meadow, or that it is a daydream of the girl’s and that she is not really there at all. The painting can have many interpretations, and can be applied metaphorically to many peoples lives. It is a piece that can speak directly to a person and their circumstances in life. A statue of a distorted figure, by the outspoken artist, to be a representation of the politicians of our day, can have only one meaning. And unless you are a politician yourself, the piece has nothing to do with the on looker’s personal lives, and quite possibly has nothing to do with the artist’s personal life either.
“The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.” - Aristotle.
Aristotle made a fascinating statement, especially when it comes to depicting something’s inward significance, to an artist creating art. But what is inward significance? And wouldn’t depicting a politician as a crude distorted figure be about the inward appearance of the politician himself? Is the artist making a judgment about a particular politician?
Inward significance starts with a personal view on something, and then it grows into a feeling, and then it grows into how it’s understanding influences you personally. It should be significant to you first and your spectators second. Art is to be an expression, not something to push an agenda.
If the reason for the art piece is to coerce people, and not to share how the artist sees the world, then it is not art at all. Art that is created for agenda is depressing, because no matter how long you try to find common ground between what you believe and what the artist is portraying, unless you believe exactly like the artist you are inexcusably wrong. It leaves you feeling alone, sad, confused, angry with either yourself or the artist.
While the purpose of art, and the need for art is to be a conversation starter, a neutral place to bring likeminded people together we have gone the opposite direction with creating it to be a platform for protests. The feelings that art should inspire in people should be, hope, inspiration, the idea of understanding, but art now leaves us heavy, feeling disgust towards the art, the artist, the subject of art, and sometimes even ourselves.
We have created a generation of art that causes one to fight another’s beliefs and feelings or even their own. We have created “The Art of War” era. We think by putting these messages in art that we will change the world for the better, but how will it evoke change if all we see is what is happening right now. We need to use art as a place to discuss our visions of what the world could be. We need to change our mindset of explaining what is going on now, to exposing the possibility of what life could be in the future.
A painting of a girl in the meadow lets one think and almost teach one’s self to look beyond what is in front of them to find out what it truly means. A distorted figure said to represent a politician only causes us to fear and hate the government and not to ask what we can do to change it. One promotes imagination, which is what helps us solve issues of all kinds. One tells us what to think, and that what the artist is depicting is the ultimate truth.
Art is the freedom to imagine, express, and think. If we eliminate that, then we eliminate the ability to see anything from a different perspective, and without new perspective there is no change in a corrupt world that needs it. If we want to change this world then we need to change our mindset on what art is, and how it should influence our future.
My question for you the reader is this - do you think that the art now will change us for the better in the future?
Or will we remain in the era of the “Art of War”?
Comments