Preamble
I had a very good conversation with the Dead Critics this morning around when things are 'finished'. A perhaps seemly innocuous topic turned out to be quite tricky, in a friendly and constructive way. It surfaced some quite interesting fundamental differences between the three of us (Roz, Catherine, and I (Bethany had to leave early)) about why and how we make art. In particular, the importance (or otherwise) of the viewer and of intent/concept.
I need to stop worrying when I have different views to other people about art. I think I am dogged by a fear of being 'wrong', but I don't know that there's any such thing in art - we all have to make the art we make, in the way we make it, and decide if we are happy with it - ultimately nobody else's opinion matters.
To me, art is play, and play is fundamentally a social activity. I think we play to learn about how we cooperate with each other, and I think we make art to learn how we each see the world. For me, then, deciding if something is 'finished' involves considering it from other people's perspective. Just as I read this blog back to check it makes sense before I post it, even though I doubt anyone will read it, so I need to consider if what I've made also 'makes sense' - does it say what I intend to say. I don't need people to like what I make, but I do need them to feel something even if it's contempt.
Does this mean I am tuning my art for the viewer? Am I creating what I assume they want? I don't think so. I think the important nuance is that, in this context, the 'viewer' is a perspective, not a person. I am not imaging what other people want as viewers, I am taking the position of viewer myself and reflecting on my work. I am asking myself if it looks finished, I'm asking myself if I would be proud to show it to other people. I am asking myself if it's the best work I can produce in that moment.
Roz asked me why it was important that people see my work. I said I wanted them to see 'me', and she suggested that a lot of my work is 'staged'. I wasn't sure how I felt about the word, but I think it's a good one. I'd also offer 'performed'... by which I mean it's an authentic emotion hidden in a contrived wrapping. I think that this is ok, because I think it is essentially a question of aesthetics, not motivation. The aim is not to deceive, the aim is to present something that entertains, but feels ever-so-slightly 'off'. I think this is in-line (ironically) with 'respect' in my manifesto - it creates multiple levels, it rewards deeper reflection. That said, it risks being 'smart-arse'... I think the key thing is that the motivation is genuine, and the aim is not to deceive - the aim is to show the repressed way we see the world, with the aim of drawing attention to that repression and the deeper uncomfortable truths below it. I must be the first artist to want to make work that is stilted and repressed, but I think that's the 'sad clown'. I can't help myself - it just bleeds out of me - e.g. I called this section 'preamble' because it sounds like 'ramble'... I just can't help making slightly bitter jokes that almost nobody is going to get.
With all this in mind, and with no irony intended (but of course, irony in calling out the lack of irony), I thought it would be good to try to capture some of this in the manifesto - the thinking being that over time, said document might eventually come to summarise everything else (yes, now I'm being ironic).
PS I am really not a bad person - I may think the world is a huge joke presented for my entertainment - but I genuinely do try to leave it better than I found it
Personal Art Manifesto v0.9.01 (changes in red)
Why I make art:
- To enrich my inner world
- To present that inner world to the outer world to do with as it will
- My art is therefore an attempt at communication with others, without assuming that those others exist in practice - I make my art in the passive hope it is viewed
- My art brings me joy in 3 stages - I feel deep joy in creating art (albeit also sometimes deep frustration), I feel joy in seeing the things I've made (however imperfect), and I feel joy in finding opportunities to show them to people.
My art should be:
- Honest
- A true and genuine attempt to communicate something I believe in
- My best possible effort, created with care and effort
- Respectful
- Respect the viewer's gift of attention, whoever they may be
- Be accessible on many levels
- Don't be a smart-arse
- Don't be obscure, strive for universal truths
- Allow the viewer space for their interpretation, don't bully a point
- Be minimal in both physical and emotional resources
- Dignified
- Too small is better than too large
- Too quiet is better than too loud
- Pieces should speak for themselves without needing long explanations (or ideally titles)
- Don't pander to people's expectations
- Pieces should defend their message and boundaries (independent of context insofar as this is possible)
- Beguiling
- Attract attention and reward it with intricacy and depth
- Draw the viewer deeper with playfulness and/or hidden depth
- Make even difficult things easy to contemplate
- Balanced
- Balance meaning, aesthetics, and technique/skill
- But meaning is more important than aesthetics and aesthetics is more important than skill
- Balance gravitas and playfulness
- Key pieces should contribute to my wider practice and should be curated accordingly
How I make art:
- I lead with concept not process - my starting point is an idea, but the process informs how (and if) that idea is finally realised
- I present genuine and authentic things in an ironic or playful way - the aim being not to deceive, but to draw attention to the real by projecting the fake
- I balance passion with detachment to try to create work that is authentic but also universal
Questions to ask myself about my art:
- Do I mostly know what this means? Is the meaning unclear to me? Is the meaning too prescriptive? Is there one meaning, or many? What else could this mean?
- Is the meaning something I genuinely feel deeply?
- Is this obscure? Could anyone get something from this?
- Would this piece work without a title or placement card?
- Is anything missing? Could anything be taken away?
- Is this my best possible effort, respecting my own limitations
- Does this piece shallow? Is it ugly? Is it technically poor? If so, does it's beauty compensate for its shallowness? Does it's meaning compensate for its poor quality? etc
- Does this grab your attention? Does it reward it when is has it? What's the first impression? What's the second? The third...
- How does this fit into my wider practice?
But not necessarily
I also wish to record the following 'anti-manifesto'.... I do not consider it important for a piece of my art to be:
- Commercially successful or even saleable
- Important to society as a whole
- Created in pursuit of some 'worthy' cause such as saving the planet (we got ourselves into this mess, lots of us will die before we are motivated enough to get ourselves out of it)
- Technical demonstrations of skill in some medium - I am the artist who walks by himself - all mediums are alike to me ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment