It’s a curious thing to look at the contradictions in your own thinking. The last few conversations here with David Riley, Annabel Tilley, David Minton and others as well as the research I’m doing at the moment into the avant-garde has put my contradictory ideas into relief. It’s a good thing. Here are some of the things in opposition in my thinking:
Anything can be art but not everything should be accepted as art.
This is perhaps at the heart of my dilemma. I do believe art can be made from anything or rather; anything can be transformed into a work of art. It is one of the fascinating things about art. It is also one of the fascinating things about human nature, the fact that we want to transform mud into something (speaking prehistorically) which we then imbue with meaning. It’s fascinating that we find meaning in things beyond ourselves; surroundings, events and objects, for example. The whole of creating and understanding is a fascination to me.
I don’t believe however that everything made or presented as art is art. How can I say that when I just said ‘the whole of creation and understanding is a fascination’? Why does this statement not allow acceptance of everything as art? I don’t know, but perhaps it has something to do with a change of perspective. As an artist I stand over there with the joy and wonderment of creating, as a spectator I stand here struggling to comprehend what I’m looking at. Why can I find meaning in some things but not in others? Does it really come down to taste after all?
Within the scope of an industry called ‘Art’ I feel strongly that critical thinking is important. It seems to bring balance. What I mean is an artist presents something as art and critical thinking of the viewer (whoever that is, as you say David R.) says ‘yeah’ or ‘nay’, nothing complicated in that. But it seems to me to be a real problem when critical thinking doesn’t do its job. But that then begs the question how far does the reach of critical thinking extend?
I guess it comes down to this; I like to have boundaries, not because I want to know my limits but because I want something to push against. With wide acceptance of everything presented as art I feel those boundaries disappear and I just fall over. And sometimes I do want to know other people’s opinion because I don’t have enough information or just can’t decide for myself.
I want to make art but I’m not content to make art and leave it at that.
This is a real head buster for me. All I want, all I have ever wanted is to make art, but I’m not content to carry on my little life doing that in my own way, in my own time. I don’t feel I’m making anything worth anything if I just do it in seclusion. I feel what I produce must be put to the litmus test with other art. Am I nuts? I’ve often thought so.
I strive to live a life of integrity but I aspire to a position in an industry which often is grossly lacking in integrity.
This one makes me squirm. I detest the greedy, arrogant, manipulative and unethical attitudes involved in this business but it is my chosen profession. I’ve got no answer for this one except to work with integrity, strive for integrity within the relationships I form and support efforts of ethical conduct within the industry.
Plurality is excellent but where is the main goal.
Why does there need to be a main goal? I don’t know but I don’t function well in chaos and that’s where plurality often leads me, I don’t mean destructive chaos, I just mean scattered activity. I can’t think in a cacophony of voices.
I’m sure I could come up with a raft of more contradictions but I had better leave it there before the crisis of confidence, followed on the heels of an identity crisis finds me…
Check out my new website:
