Subjective artists are one-eyed, but objective artists are blind. - Georges Rouault
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
As a painter, I believe that there is a common language, an understanding among other artists, writers, musicians, or really anyone that is creative for that matter. Its dangerous to classify things as being univeraslly objective or subjective, or even the possibility that things can be only subjective or objective. I know with painting, its pretty much understood early on that of course we see things with our own "lens", its almost a given. But within that, leaving the basic notion at the doorstep, because we all share that notion, then we can discuss art as possessing objective or subjective themes. Its possible to attempt to seek art that may be objective in the message. An example could be Warhol at his best, or on the opposite spectrum, Pollack at his best. Both very different, but when objectively discussing the nature of the intent of their work, I believe they both touched on some objective truths. With Warhol, the whole mass consumption marketing ideaologies that convey the sign of the times. With Pollack, breaking away from European tradition, that painting can be its own subject without referencing the referencial, letting paint be the subject. To me, these are objective ways to look at art. I think the best kind of artist has a firm understanding of their "subjectiveness" so much that they seek more to life than their own self fulfilling subjective themes, where they boldly attempt the "objective". Because, if I were to hire someone to teach, of course depending on the type of class, I would want someone that knows themselves so well, that they need not feel the need to pass on personal beliefs, but understand people are different and there may be more than one way to reach somebody. With that being said, one can objectively reach. Just because I personally might not agree with some political agendas, does not mean that I can not talk about politics without leaving my very own feelings at the doorstep.
I think Rouault is talking about a more generic, all encompassing artist. Artists that believe the rigidness of being this way or that... that artists that strive for subjectiveness ultimately leaves us with a small vision of their world, "one eyed". Artists that never reach an understanding of themselves, that only create to strive for objectivity without having a solid grasp on their own individual selves-- leaves us in the dark or "blind".
I fancy myself to be an artist too. When I create anything, I don't want my creation to be the object at all. I just want to spark a very long, very boring discussion (or maybe just a monologue) about objectivity. That is the beauty of art.
One late twentieth century thinker said ideas flow from the philosophers to the artists to the musicians to the popular culture and into your head where they become not so much ideas as invisible rules you use to think. He was only wrong in putting the philosophers before the artists in my opinion.
If you don't find this topic to be interesting, (in fact, important!) then you have fancied yourself incorrectly. Whether we realize it or not, the people who are shaping our world- and who are shaping the way we will think about our world tomorrow- are the artists pushing boundaries and asking questions with their work today. That's not boring.
Thanks for that note Greg. To me its increasingly difficult to find the importance of being an artist today. I guess I look too much into the past for inspiration and forget about the value of the present moment- the intangible benefits of art. I'm in a place where everyone "fancies" themselves as artists, so the thought of being one myself sometimes gets watered down and dilluted with the "style" or "coolness" that makes everything feel fleeting and on the brink of falling out of fashion. So then I turn inward, and forget about artists as a collective. It was nice to be reminded of a notion of art that begs further investigation... and from inward- turning outward.
4 comments:
As a painter, I believe that there is a common language, an understanding among other artists, writers, musicians, or really anyone that is creative for that matter. Its dangerous to classify things as being univeraslly objective or subjective, or even the possibility that things can be only subjective or objective. I know with painting, its pretty much understood early on that of course we see things with our own "lens", its almost a given. But within that, leaving the basic notion at the doorstep, because we all share that notion, then we can discuss art as possessing objective or subjective themes. Its possible to attempt to seek art that may be objective in the message. An example could be Warhol at his best, or on the opposite spectrum, Pollack at his best. Both very different, but when objectively discussing the nature of the intent of their work, I believe they both touched on some objective truths. With Warhol, the whole mass consumption marketing ideaologies that convey the sign of the times. With Pollack, breaking away from European tradition, that painting can be its own subject without referencing the referencial, letting paint be the subject. To me, these are objective ways to look at art. I think the best kind of artist has a firm understanding of their "subjectiveness" so much that they seek more to life than their own self fulfilling subjective themes, where they boldly attempt the "objective". Because, if I were to hire someone to teach, of course depending on the type of class, I would want someone that knows themselves so well, that they need not feel the need to pass on personal beliefs, but understand people are different and there may be more than one way to reach somebody. With that being said, one can objectively reach. Just because I personally might not agree with some political agendas, does not mean that I can not talk about politics without leaving my very own feelings at the doorstep.
I think Rouault is talking about a more generic, all encompassing artist. Artists that believe the rigidness of being this way or that... that artists that strive for subjectiveness ultimately leaves us with a small vision of their world, "one eyed". Artists that never reach an understanding of themselves, that only create to strive for objectivity without having a solid grasp on their own individual selves-- leaves us in the dark or "blind".
Sorry for being so long. Interesting topic.
I fancy myself to be an artist too.
When I create anything, I don't want my creation to be the object at all. I just want to spark a very long, very boring discussion (or maybe just a monologue) about objectivity. That is the beauty of art.
One late twentieth century thinker said ideas flow from the philosophers to the artists to the musicians to the popular culture and into your head where they become not so much ideas as invisible rules you use to think. He was only wrong in putting the philosophers before the artists in my opinion.
If you don't find this topic to be interesting, (in fact, important!) then you have fancied yourself incorrectly. Whether we realize it or not, the people who are shaping our world- and who are shaping the way we will think about our world tomorrow- are the artists pushing boundaries and asking questions with their work today. That's not boring.
(I'm the 1st Anonymous, not the second)
Thanks for that note Greg. To me its increasingly difficult to find the importance of being an artist today. I guess I look too much into the past for inspiration and forget about the value of the present moment- the intangible benefits of art. I'm in a place where everyone "fancies" themselves as artists, so the thought of being one myself sometimes gets watered down and dilluted with the "style" or "coolness" that makes everything feel fleeting and on the brink of falling out of fashion. So then I turn inward, and forget about artists as a collective.
It was nice to be reminded of a notion of art that begs further investigation... and from inward- turning outward.
Post a Comment