Art vs. Karma, Picasso vs. Van Gogh
Art and karma are playing a game…
If you care to be recognized and esteemed by the art establishment, I think that the whole idea is to first convince the art community that you know what classic art is, that you know how to be an “academic” artist.
Once you have proved your expertise in the formalities and rituals of classic and academic art, once you have been ordained into the consensus of the art establishment, you can more or less do whatever you want and there will always be at least one art critique that will find some rational and artistic justification for that.
I can only assume that sometimes, even the artist himself will not understand what that critique is talking about.
What is art?
I believe that most works of art are the outcome of inspiration and intuition, while as the rational explanation, especially if you focus on the minute details of compositional architecture, color scheme, formation, etc. comes only after you have already expressed your intuition to the fullest.
I guess this could be the reason why Picasso experienced and said: “If you know in advance what it is that you are going to do, what is then the point of doing it? You better do something else”. And if you don’t know in advance what it is that you’re going to do, how can you explain it then? Hence, the analyzing commentary of the work, along with its artistic justifications and principled explanations arrive after the work is already finished.
So actually, a certain creation will be considered by the consensus as art, if their judging perception of the one who created it is of an artist. Once that point of view is shared by the consensus, this person will become an artist and his creation will turn into art. They will find the way to explain whatever it is that he or she did.
But if that person did not receive recognition as an artist, his work will be disregarded, no matter how well it could have been explained had they only wanted to bother over it a little.
Who is an artist?
So now the question is asked: who is an artist? Well, that would be one who is recognized as an artist. And who might that be? One who’s karma designated him to be a recognized artist.
I don’t think that there is any doubt today that Van Gogh was no less of an artist than Picasso, Dali and all the rest of them that succeeded during their life times, but for some obscure reason he remained unknown, unappreciated, poor, sick and miserable for his entire short life. He was intended to arrive to the world in a certain era with certain humanity that will not recognize his genius and capabilities until it was definitely too late for him to enjoy it.
Does that mean that during his life Van Gogh was not an artist? Subjectively, perhaps he was an artist – within the realms of his own private world perhaps he defined himself as an artist and felt like one, but objectively speaking he was not. The contemporary consensus of the art establishment and the collective of society did not give him the recognition for being one, and God doesn’t care anyway – it’s all the same to him and these are the only objectives I can think of.
Van Gogh lived twice: once his real miserable life and the second time as the suffering genius artist image in the minds of millions, in the collective consciousness of humanity for the past 70 years or so, and you can trust me for saying, that he sure as hell did not all of a sudden turn into an artist after he died – what changed was humanity’s collective thought patterns – the observer awakened to realize the truth.
The pre-designated unknown pathology
Van Gogh’s karma changed only many years after his death, but it could have been different also – he could have been successful in his life just as Picasso could have failed and been scorned instead of having been admired so much. Would that have diminished his worthiness for such status, fame and recognition?
We know now that it is indeed so. But who judges these things? Art does? Art does not judge and so doesn’t God. God makes the artist, society makes him successful, but all for a reason, always.
Shortcut to Heaven
The Manifest for Applied Abstract Art
Windmill Harmony, Grayscale version
The Triangle of Spirituality
Crane View
Van Gogh wasn’t an artist because he didn’t become successful in the market, but Thomas Kincade is an artist because he is. This is not useful.
Hadn’t Thomas Kinkade been successful would you have heard of him to begin with? Hadn’t he been embraced by the art establishment would people have purchased his artworks? without exhibiting or selling would he have been “an artist” in the public’s eye?
That’s the whole point. Artists are artists whenever they are artists’ but the public opinion judges them not to be ones without them accomplishing a status of recognition by those who think they have received the right to determine who are artists and who are not.
Your definition of artist has so little to do with art. Actually the public doesn’t get a chance at them unless, by scheme or blind luck, they turn out a product the establishment can process at the time. It wasn’t the public that rejected Van Gogh. They’ve always liked him since the first chance they had to see him, sometime after he had stopped painting.
What I was writing about here is probably the art establishment’s or the public’s definition of art rather than my own.
Actually, my own definition of art is elaborately explained here: http://findigart.com/articles/the-artistry-of-art, and indeed it has got nothing to do with the self-image sustained by the public opinion or external judgment.
Maybe the public would like honesty, directness, and accomplishment if we weren’t deciding for them. The art establishment wants a marketable commodity, and cares very little about art on any level — they exploit the product, the workers, and the customers like big business tends to do. Why don’t we leave them out?
Your words are completely true, precise and concise, and indeed the natural step would be to just leave them out.
Then again I, like many others, tend to seek approval for my existence. I am working on becoming a whole and confident human being so that my self-center would provide me all the security and faith that I need, but it’s a long path. Creating without receiving any feedback can at times feel vapid and pointless. At times it is the illusion of Ego that makes art worthwhile to begin with.
How do you find ways to make a living through art which is not supported by the establishment?