I've never been much of one to stick with one drawing for an extended period of time. I quickly become uninspired, unmotivated, and my drawings suffer because of it. My mind starts wandering to ideas for other drawings, instead of focusing completely on the one at hand.
Sometimes I wonder if other artists have as much mental block as I seem to constantly be fighting against. It makes me start to question everything about being an artist-- do I really have a creative bone in my body, or have I just been faking it all this time? Did the artists I admire get so tired of drawing that they just wanted to give up, but at the same time have this nagging feeling that they had to finish to prove that they COULD finish? I often wish I could go back and talk to those artists, and learn from them. What would Rockwell have been able to tell me to encourage me? Da Vinci? Degas? Pauline Baynes? Garth Williams? I feel like they could have all really helped me find my place as an artist.
Being an art student who wants to illustrate childrens books, it's sometimes hard to feel like I belong. I don't have dreams of being the next Picasso, and I don't like pieces of art that need be be dissected and interpreted. When a person looks at an illustration in a book, often they can understand what's going on in the book with just a quick glance (at least to some extent). THat is the ultimate goal-- to make pieces that are pleasing to the eye, but are also easy to understand. But that not what the current world of art encourages. They want artists to dig deep, creating huge paintings that represent this or that emotion and need to be interpreted. And that's fine--to each his own. In fact, I admire artists who can open themselves up to that kind of vulnerability.
My question is: what's wrong with creating art for the masses? Why have ben begun to view artists like Norman Rockwell and Thomas Kinkade as kitsch, when really they produce art that a greater majority of people want and enjoy than they do Picasso or Damian Hurst? Yes, of course their artwork is slightly mroe idealized, but most people WANT to look at things that let them forget their harsh world for just a little while, instead of looking at things that only pull them deeper into their misery. They want to look at beautiful things, but at things that are gruesome and gory. It is still possible to create artwork that has just as much character, emotion, and resonance for people.
Sometimes I wonder if other artists have as much mental block as I seem to constantly be fighting against. It makes me start to question everything about being an artist-- do I really have a creative bone in my body, or have I just been faking it all this time? Did the artists I admire get so tired of drawing that they just wanted to give up, but at the same time have this nagging feeling that they had to finish to prove that they COULD finish? I often wish I could go back and talk to those artists, and learn from them. What would Rockwell have been able to tell me to encourage me? Da Vinci? Degas? Pauline Baynes? Garth Williams? I feel like they could have all really helped me find my place as an artist.
Being an art student who wants to illustrate childrens books, it's sometimes hard to feel like I belong. I don't have dreams of being the next Picasso, and I don't like pieces of art that need be be dissected and interpreted. When a person looks at an illustration in a book, often they can understand what's going on in the book with just a quick glance (at least to some extent). THat is the ultimate goal-- to make pieces that are pleasing to the eye, but are also easy to understand. But that not what the current world of art encourages. They want artists to dig deep, creating huge paintings that represent this or that emotion and need to be interpreted. And that's fine--to each his own. In fact, I admire artists who can open themselves up to that kind of vulnerability.
My question is: what's wrong with creating art for the masses? Why have ben begun to view artists like Norman Rockwell and Thomas Kinkade as kitsch, when really they produce art that a greater majority of people want and enjoy than they do Picasso or Damian Hurst? Yes, of course their artwork is slightly mroe idealized, but most people WANT to look at things that let them forget their harsh world for just a little while, instead of looking at things that only pull them deeper into their misery. They want to look at beautiful things, but at things that are gruesome and gory. It is still possible to create artwork that has just as much character, emotion, and resonance for people.
Wow! What depth here. I agree with you say about art. It is all in the eye of the beholder though.
ReplyDeleteI wish I could go back and talk to many people about life. Start doing it now. When you are with other people, both young and old, ask questions. Questions like the one's you talk about here. Get their impression on art. Find out if in their line of work they get mental blocks and how they overcome them. If they start a project do they go back and finish it and then what is the end result? In other words, become a conversationalist rather than and listener.