I had a letter this week about the problem of why we make art. It wasn't an abstract philosophical question, but one driven by dissatisfaction with a college course that seemed to focus on a particular style of abstract expressionism and left the reader feeling a kind of hatred for art. We talked around a few of the issues; at first I wondered if it was because of disillusionment - the art process was no longer the mysterious secret 'gift' that popular mythology suggests it should be. But this reader wasn't one of those in the "if it doesn't look like something, it's not art" camp - on the contrary, it was concerns about the human condition and the wonders of nature and science, contrasted with the indulgent self-absorption of the artist, that were at the root of the problem. I've re-written some of my thoughts into an article on why we make art. It's just a bunch of ideas and opinions - you might well feel very differently about the issue. I'd love to hear your thoughts about it.
Related Articles
- How to Draw Manga Hands - Finishing the Drawing
- Portrait of Louis Armstrong - Reader Stories: A Special Drawing
- Reflections by Jill - A Weekly Commentary for One Life to Live for August 2...
- Feminist Art Journal - Studying Women and Art in the Feminist Art Journal
- Honorable Mentions, March 2004 InterBoard Poetry Competition
Explore Drawing / Sketching
Must Reads
Most Popular
©2012 About.com. All rights reserved.
A part of The New York Times Company.
Comments
I always enjoy your perspective on things — I think it’s best to maintain an expansive view on what art is because, like love, it’s not subject to the rules of logic or formula. It’s one of those mysteries we won’t be able to adequately solve — why some love and emulate what looks like scribbles and self-indulgence to another. I loved your reference to Brian Keenan’s orange — to value the color and symmetry of an orange more than it’s nutrition in such a dire circumstance illustrates the lack of logic and the presence of magic in all that is artful. I will never look at an orange the same — or a still-life of fruit for that matter.
An interesting article. It brought me back to the 1960s when I took Saturday art classes at the MFA in Boston. The first day of class was a sunny, pleasant September day. The teachers said we should go outside and draw and they told us where we could sit in a group. Everyone looked toward the Boston skyline and started drawing it. I wanted to do something different, so I looked to my left and saw a street light (in the middle of a lawn), a bicycle chained to it and a trash barrel. I started drawing the composition and the teacher came over and yelled, “I said to draw something interesting! Is that interesting? Look at what everyone else is drawing. Why aren’t you drawing what they’re drawing?” Well, that was the reason I wasn’t! A little later, us classmates started looking at each other’s drawings and one boy said, “Look what she did! This is great. No one else thought to draw this.” The rest of the class liked it because of all the detail in it. They all paid attention to the “forest” while I zeroed in on a few “trees”. Is one art and not the other? What did these teachers think art is?
The last para of the article really sums it up. While ‘art’ can be personal “”ab initio” “or ” per se”, but it is complete only if, it can appeal universally. Nothing exists in isolation and any human activity or endeavour has to have inclusive appeal.
Why draw? What better way to express yourself than by showing others how you see things. Since I was a little girl I have seen beauty everywhere, and to draw and paint what I saw.