There are some misconceptions about the process of art making that is so popular in movies and pulp fiction that people think they are true and universal. As an artist, a former curator and art administrator for more than two decades all together, these misconceptions rather damage the whole creative process than uplift it. Many unscrupulous dealers have used these myths to sell the work, but the truth is somewhat more complex than that. I mention a few, more popular ones here:
(1) The myth of the masterpiece and minor works
People tend to think that artmaking is a hierarchical order of work. Drawings are the fundamental basic skill good only for studies and preparatory sketches; smaller works are minor pieces that are lined up towards the grand finale: the masterpiece. That may be true...if you were living in the years between 1200-1800, or a simply not a part of the 20th nor the 21st century...and your name is Rip Van Winkle. Even during those time artists have commented that often their drawings are better than their larger works and even regret having transferred the image in another media or form. The first thing people say about the Mona Lisa is that it seems a bit smaller than the expected. Ha! Its because they EXPECTED significance equals scale and vice-versa. They also expect a fully rendered oil painting to be superior to half-minute sketches. If an artist can explain himself he would say that NO MATTER THE MEDIA its the MANNER of representing truth that is the thing that he seeks to express. What is this truth? It is the expression of something universal of the human condition that is couched in the personal. Edvard Munch's oil sketch "The Scream" carries more of this truth than all the decorative canvases of the French School. Kathe Kollwitz's drawings and woodcuts strike the heart with its intensity, no matter how small, rather than the large public sculptures of the former Soviet Union that extoll the virtues of the working class masses.
True artists do not strive to make masterpieces, but simply strive in and out of their studios, by a range of materials and techniques to serve them well in the search for this manner that is truthful. In short, Art is a continuous practice, where one work leads to another. It never really ends until the artist dies. There are no masterpieces, only works.
(2) The myth of inspiration
We often see a representation of an artist suddenly possessed by an idea and rushes off to work. In sappy love stories this possession is almost always triggered by person, a beloved, a crush. They say the artist needs inspiration...I say they only search for an excuse not to work.
The first and foremost "inspiration" or motivation (which is the proper, non-romantic term for this) is the craft itself. To an artist the act of creating something, or even to think of possible ways of creating is the progenitor of the creative acts. When an artist or a doofus sees a beautiful woman (or a landscape) to draw or paint from it is not the loveliness of the subject that captures his or her fancy, but the EXPERIENCE OF CREATING IN THAT PRESENCE, or in a painter's case the opportunity of working with the feeling of infatuation as the agent of mixing colors. How many times can artists attest to feeling frustrated of not "getting it right" and destruction commences? Its the craft, people, that is the true love of the creative person and NOT its subjects - these are all fleeting. So the next time a shmuck comes to you with a request to paint or take your picture do not be flattered: you are simply a means to a creative end. It is the craft that inspires the artist, not the subject: just look at Van Gogh, Soutine or Otto Dix.
(3) The ultimate myth of the artist-as-author and ego
People fall for this myth more than anything else. They believe (along with artists) that they are the creators of their works and therefore their author. As such artists are regarded as geniuses, a class apart etc etc and their signature on works are valued so heavily...even when said work is crap.
The core belief is the artist is in full control of the creative process. The artist is the creator of the artwork. WRONG.
In fact the reverse is true. The ARTWORKS DEFINE THE ARTIST. The artist is a point of departure for the work. Unlike most gods who can create from nothing, artists have to make something out of something. And that something has to be understood in a language or visual scheme, if not within his time and community but in other times and other cultures. In fact, the meaning of the work is GENERATED by responses of viewers to the work. The artist can do only so much, but he can also do theatrics to make his work look better in certain contexts. Thus the artist, through his work, can have vested value by a community and therefore brings him a name to be identified. All artists seek this validation, deny as they may to death.
Also, within the creative process itself is the factor of intuition and the presence of the subconscious. Half the time the artist does NOT have full conscious and rational control over the work: there are many accidents that lead to breakthroughs, some dreams can inform images that have not been perceived. Artmaking is not a rational function, if it was then I am sad to say, that is simply mathematics.
These three are just among those deluded love storytellers use as a scheme for their character's follies of infatuation and aggrandizement. In fact the artist is different from the rest of humanity - the just feel different about their humanity. Most of the time we feel alienated, naked, like some monsters or a menace. And this is because the creative mind is apparently hardwired to think of possibilities, even breaking old patterns of thinking. If it wasn't for this facet, this spark of seeing what is possible, then we would have not evolved into the species that we are now: curiosity.
And curiosity is the heart and essence of the creative and artistic venture.
(1) The myth of the masterpiece and minor works
People tend to think that artmaking is a hierarchical order of work. Drawings are the fundamental basic skill good only for studies and preparatory sketches; smaller works are minor pieces that are lined up towards the grand finale: the masterpiece. That may be true...if you were living in the years between 1200-1800, or a simply not a part of the 20th nor the 21st century...and your name is Rip Van Winkle. Even during those time artists have commented that often their drawings are better than their larger works and even regret having transferred the image in another media or form. The first thing people say about the Mona Lisa is that it seems a bit smaller than the expected. Ha! Its because they EXPECTED significance equals scale and vice-versa. They also expect a fully rendered oil painting to be superior to half-minute sketches. If an artist can explain himself he would say that NO MATTER THE MEDIA its the MANNER of representing truth that is the thing that he seeks to express. What is this truth? It is the expression of something universal of the human condition that is couched in the personal. Edvard Munch's oil sketch "The Scream" carries more of this truth than all the decorative canvases of the French School. Kathe Kollwitz's drawings and woodcuts strike the heart with its intensity, no matter how small, rather than the large public sculptures of the former Soviet Union that extoll the virtues of the working class masses.
True artists do not strive to make masterpieces, but simply strive in and out of their studios, by a range of materials and techniques to serve them well in the search for this manner that is truthful. In short, Art is a continuous practice, where one work leads to another. It never really ends until the artist dies. There are no masterpieces, only works.
(2) The myth of inspiration
We often see a representation of an artist suddenly possessed by an idea and rushes off to work. In sappy love stories this possession is almost always triggered by person, a beloved, a crush. They say the artist needs inspiration...I say they only search for an excuse not to work.
The first and foremost "inspiration" or motivation (which is the proper, non-romantic term for this) is the craft itself. To an artist the act of creating something, or even to think of possible ways of creating is the progenitor of the creative acts. When an artist or a doofus sees a beautiful woman (or a landscape) to draw or paint from it is not the loveliness of the subject that captures his or her fancy, but the EXPERIENCE OF CREATING IN THAT PRESENCE, or in a painter's case the opportunity of working with the feeling of infatuation as the agent of mixing colors. How many times can artists attest to feeling frustrated of not "getting it right" and destruction commences? Its the craft, people, that is the true love of the creative person and NOT its subjects - these are all fleeting. So the next time a shmuck comes to you with a request to paint or take your picture do not be flattered: you are simply a means to a creative end. It is the craft that inspires the artist, not the subject: just look at Van Gogh, Soutine or Otto Dix.
(3) The ultimate myth of the artist-as-author and ego
People fall for this myth more than anything else. They believe (along with artists) that they are the creators of their works and therefore their author. As such artists are regarded as geniuses, a class apart etc etc and their signature on works are valued so heavily...even when said work is crap.
The core belief is the artist is in full control of the creative process. The artist is the creator of the artwork. WRONG.
In fact the reverse is true. The ARTWORKS DEFINE THE ARTIST. The artist is a point of departure for the work. Unlike most gods who can create from nothing, artists have to make something out of something. And that something has to be understood in a language or visual scheme, if not within his time and community but in other times and other cultures. In fact, the meaning of the work is GENERATED by responses of viewers to the work. The artist can do only so much, but he can also do theatrics to make his work look better in certain contexts. Thus the artist, through his work, can have vested value by a community and therefore brings him a name to be identified. All artists seek this validation, deny as they may to death.
Also, within the creative process itself is the factor of intuition and the presence of the subconscious. Half the time the artist does NOT have full conscious and rational control over the work: there are many accidents that lead to breakthroughs, some dreams can inform images that have not been perceived. Artmaking is not a rational function, if it was then I am sad to say, that is simply mathematics.
These three are just among those deluded love storytellers use as a scheme for their character's follies of infatuation and aggrandizement. In fact the artist is different from the rest of humanity - the just feel different about their humanity. Most of the time we feel alienated, naked, like some monsters or a menace. And this is because the creative mind is apparently hardwired to think of possibilities, even breaking old patterns of thinking. If it wasn't for this facet, this spark of seeing what is possible, then we would have not evolved into the species that we are now: curiosity.
And curiosity is the heart and essence of the creative and artistic venture.
RSS Feed