There's a sort of nervous tension that I've come to notice when I let it slip to people that I like to paint and draw and do artsy things. I recall one person asking what kind of stuff I paint, and when I showed them a picture, they let out a huge sigh of relief. "Whew! I was afraid you'd be terrible and I'd have to pretend that I was impressed."
(First, let me clarify that I'm fully aware that might still be the case and they were covering their tracks by describing how much they'd hate to be in the exact situation they're in... Awkward times call for awkward measures.)
But ernyways, I've had a good handful of situations or comments like that, and I think that their fear isn't just that I'll whip out a photo of a painting that's supposed to be of a dog that looks more like a gerbil than anything, but that it's also that I'll pull up a photo of a canvas that's painted all one color or looks like something Jackson Pollack may have inspired. The basis for this hypothesis is that the conversation seems to pretty consistently steer toward the subject of what we will just call, for the sake of lumping a big list of different schools of artwork that are similar in the way that they lack objective subject matter or a more illustrative style into one term: "Weird" Art. Art that doesn't look like an illustration from a storybook or like you'd see in the the Louvre. Art that isn't in any way, shape, or form traditional. Art that looks like a kid could do it, or like someone who is perhaps a bit troubled may have come up with it. Art that you would get an F for in art class. You know what I'm talking about.
(First, let me clarify that I'm fully aware that might still be the case and they were covering their tracks by describing how much they'd hate to be in the exact situation they're in... Awkward times call for awkward measures.)
But ernyways, I've had a good handful of situations or comments like that, and I think that their fear isn't just that I'll whip out a photo of a painting that's supposed to be of a dog that looks more like a gerbil than anything, but that it's also that I'll pull up a photo of a canvas that's painted all one color or looks like something Jackson Pollack may have inspired. The basis for this hypothesis is that the conversation seems to pretty consistently steer toward the subject of what we will just call, for the sake of lumping a big list of different schools of artwork that are similar in the way that they lack objective subject matter or a more illustrative style into one term: "Weird" Art. Art that doesn't look like an illustration from a storybook or like you'd see in the the Louvre. Art that isn't in any way, shape, or form traditional. Art that looks like a kid could do it, or like someone who is perhaps a bit troubled may have come up with it. Art that you would get an F for in art class. You know what I'm talking about.
It seems as though it just always comes up. "Well since you're into art then, can you explain to me why people make millions of dollars on these paintings and things that I could do?"
It used to be my first reaction to laugh it off, scoffing that these people must have just figured out that they can get a ton of attention and even money just by being weird, so that's just what they're going to do. But as I've read more, seen more, and learned more, the subject has gotten a tad more interesting than that.
While I would so much rather go to the Musée D'Orsay...
(where you'll find paintings such as this one by Van Gogh:)
It used to be my first reaction to laugh it off, scoffing that these people must have just figured out that they can get a ton of attention and even money just by being weird, so that's just what they're going to do. But as I've read more, seen more, and learned more, the subject has gotten a tad more interesting than that.
While I would so much rather go to the Musée D'Orsay...
(where you'll find paintings such as this one by Van Gogh:)
...than the Centre Pompidou, which focuses on more modern art... (such as this painting called New York City by Piet Mondrian:)
...I'm finally starting to come around to work that is of more of a "weird" nature.
As I've mentioned before, I am starting down a path that will (hopefully- Knock on Wood and all that jazz) lead me to being an art teacher, and helping people to understand what they're looking at is one of the main reasons that I'm so excited about this. So this series of blog posts will be my first attempt at broaching this subject with any semblance of a n I-know-something-I-promise attitude. I hope to touch on the beginnings of this kind of art, some of the cornerstones of its history, some examples of it and what to think about as you look at it, and even some projects for you to try on your own.
As we kick this off, I'd like to begin by giving you the definitions, from good ol' dictionary.com, of the words "Subjective" and "Objective."
Subjective: "Existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought; placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric." (1)
Objective: "Being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject; not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased." (2)
Understanding these definitions is extremely important when it comes to understanding what you're looking at when you see a piece of art, whether it be a painting, sculpture, drawing, film, photograph, etc. For example, the Van Gogh above is objective (a painting that is clearly of a house and a garden), while the "New York" painting is subjective. One of the first questions you can ask yourself is whether the piece you're looking at is intended to be objective or subjective. Are you meant to see it for just what you're being shown, or are you meant to think about it in a more circuitous way?
And then, as it goes in the glorious world of art, you'll be faced with the ocean of gray area between these two definitions.
As I wrap up this post today, I want to throw out a quote that has stuck with me since the first time I heard it on an episode of The West Wing (CRAZY awesome show, by the way), called "The U.S. Poet Laureate." Said U.S. Poet Laureate, named Tabatha Fortis on the show, states, "An artist's job is to captivate you for however long we've asked for your attention. If we stumble into truth, we got lucky. And I don't get to decide what truth is." (3)
It strikes me as so very true, especially the bit about artists asking for our attention. (Other parts are equally important, just less relevant for today.) Even though a piece of art might be as abstract as it gets, it's not meant to just sit there and have no one ever even glance at it. It's meant to be looked at, thought about, considered, debated, analyzed, dismissed, discovered, and shared. If all else fails, just try to consider what the intent of the artist was, even if the artist himself isn't sure what their intent was, and it will make the experience of viewing the art so much better than it otherwise might be.
I feel like the whole time I've been typing this, I've been trying to walk down Main Street in Disney World with blinders on, trying to stay on a very narrow subject and avoiding going down all of the rabbit holes that just pepper the topic. I hope this is at least a semi-understandable introduction to this, and that you're as excited for the next post in this series as I am!
Thanks,
Sarah
As I've mentioned before, I am starting down a path that will (hopefully- Knock on Wood and all that jazz) lead me to being an art teacher, and helping people to understand what they're looking at is one of the main reasons that I'm so excited about this. So this series of blog posts will be my first attempt at broaching this subject with any semblance of a n I-know-something-I-promise attitude. I hope to touch on the beginnings of this kind of art, some of the cornerstones of its history, some examples of it and what to think about as you look at it, and even some projects for you to try on your own.
As we kick this off, I'd like to begin by giving you the definitions, from good ol' dictionary.com, of the words "Subjective" and "Objective."
Subjective: "Existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought; placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric." (1)
Objective: "Being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject; not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased." (2)
Understanding these definitions is extremely important when it comes to understanding what you're looking at when you see a piece of art, whether it be a painting, sculpture, drawing, film, photograph, etc. For example, the Van Gogh above is objective (a painting that is clearly of a house and a garden), while the "New York" painting is subjective. One of the first questions you can ask yourself is whether the piece you're looking at is intended to be objective or subjective. Are you meant to see it for just what you're being shown, or are you meant to think about it in a more circuitous way?
And then, as it goes in the glorious world of art, you'll be faced with the ocean of gray area between these two definitions.
As I wrap up this post today, I want to throw out a quote that has stuck with me since the first time I heard it on an episode of The West Wing (CRAZY awesome show, by the way), called "The U.S. Poet Laureate." Said U.S. Poet Laureate, named Tabatha Fortis on the show, states, "An artist's job is to captivate you for however long we've asked for your attention. If we stumble into truth, we got lucky. And I don't get to decide what truth is." (3)
It strikes me as so very true, especially the bit about artists asking for our attention. (Other parts are equally important, just less relevant for today.) Even though a piece of art might be as abstract as it gets, it's not meant to just sit there and have no one ever even glance at it. It's meant to be looked at, thought about, considered, debated, analyzed, dismissed, discovered, and shared. If all else fails, just try to consider what the intent of the artist was, even if the artist himself isn't sure what their intent was, and it will make the experience of viewing the art so much better than it otherwise might be.
I feel like the whole time I've been typing this, I've been trying to walk down Main Street in Disney World with blinders on, trying to stay on a very narrow subject and avoiding going down all of the rabbit holes that just pepper the topic. I hope this is at least a semi-understandable introduction to this, and that you're as excited for the next post in this series as I am!
Thanks,
Sarah
1) http://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective
2) http://www.dictionary.com/browse/subjective?s=t
3) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745711/quotes
2) http://www.dictionary.com/browse/subjective?s=t
3) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745711/quotes