Jean Cocteau said " An artist cannot speak about his art
any more than a plant can speak about horticulture. " a
provocative statement, and one with which I agree, to some
extent.
Basically the artist is a part of art, and cannot exist as an
outside observer, any more than a plant can study itself;
because the plant is just a part of horticulture.
Nevertheless, artists these days are expected to speak
extensively about their work; to defend it. Why are artists, who
function in a visual medium, expected to verbally frame their
work? In part, I suppose, because so much art must pass
through a university setting; where art must compete with
science, math and humanities studies in order to be taken
seriously; particularly by government funding sources.
University Art department heads gain nothing from art being
viewed as a kind of folly, or diversion; something unessential.
So a verbal defence must be made; a veneer of superintellectualism
is sometimes coated over the vision of art. What
becomes most important is what is said about the art; which
frequently reflects ideas gotten from the realm of "higher
education". The University one attended becomes an
addendum to the artist statement; a part of the artists artist's
story, or personal myth.
In spite of all this, I do believe that words are
indispensable; both as a part of art, and apart from art. The
Bible says, "In the beginning was the word..." . (John 1:1) The
"word", to me is the seed, or idea. In this sense, I believe
"words" are what create visual art, through a kind of divine
fiat, spoken by the artist. He stands in the midst of the studio,
brush in hand, commanding the media, as God commanded
matter: "Let there be a canvas. Let it be 8 feet long, and ten
feet wide. Let the colors be red, blue, and pink", etc.
The artist creates order from chaos. He gives life to the lifeless.
He takes a boring inanimate object and makes it interesting;
giving it the spark of genius by recreating it's image on a lowly
piece of paper.
Sir Joshua Reynolds said, " A room hung with pictures, is a
room hung with thoughts" ; and what are thoughts, but
ideas; unspoken words? So our "words", our thoughts, are
manifested in our art. Still, words themselves can be
appreciated as art. This occurs in two senses :through the
spoken word, as exemplified in books poems, or songs; or
visually, through such examples as hieroglyphics, calligraphy ,
or even graffiti. Both words and images are interchangeable
modes of communication.
However, people need eyes to fully appreciate visual art; but
need neither ears nor eyes to understand words; as shown in
the case of Helen Keller, who used verbal communication
despite having neither hearing nor sight. Words to me are the
most basic form of communication; so I don't mind talking
about my work. I may even create a piece of art in order to
start a conversation.
I could create a piece called "The Jews Are Destroying
America", and it does not matter what is in the image; a
conversation will almost certainly emerge, if not a fight. That is
the power of the word combined with the image . The two can
work very well together. Images can be a great vehicle for
opening the door to verbal discussion, no matter what the
images are. It is sometimes helpful, but not necessary for the
title of the work, and the image to have an observable, intrinsic
relationship.
In the words of Herbert Read, " Art is always the index
of social vitality, the moving finger that records the
destiny of a civilisation. A wise statesman should keep
an anxious eye on this graph, for it is far more
significant than a decline in exports or the fall in the
value of a nations' currency."
This begs the question: what is art? Is art the soul of a nation;
including all the arts: poetry, theater, the visual arts, and
more? I believe it is; and I believe that when this soul is
thriving and honest, there is hope. The existence of a great
stand up comic, like Dave Chappelle, or that of a satirist Like
Stephen Colbert gives me hope that our nation has a future.
Good humor, including "dark humor", shows resilience; that
somebody is still thinking, and highlights our shared
experiences in a world that sometimes makes little sense.
In the 1980's in America, Heavy Metal was the new "boogie
man"; the enemy that was destroying our children. People
were afraid of satanic cults, and hidden messages in metal
music. I remember reading an article on the subject. A police
officer told parents the warning signs to look for, to see if your
child was possibly in a satanic cult. He said one thing to look
for was a complete lack of any sense of humor.
Heavy metal may not have ultimately been the culprit, but one
thing is true: people without a sense of humor are dangerous.
Their minds are brittle. They can't laugh at themselves, or
shine a bright light on a dark situation. That's where the artist
steps in. He highlights the good by deconstructing the elements
of a given situation, such as war or politics; not necessarily to
make people laugh; but to extract the whole truth. Sometimes
to rise above the absurd we must embrace it. I always want to
have some humor in my work, but it is difficult to have humor
in art and still be taken seriously.
Although I may desire to have humor in my work, comedy is
not my aspiration. I aspire to the slightly darker realm of
satire, as seen in the work of Francisco Goya, and Honore'
Daumier. Satire can exist both visually and verbally. It
represents the ability to speak out, and to provide context and
perspective in a public forum; essential to the pursuit of
happiness.
It is also sometimes said that the the existence of a free press
is essential to a free society. I believe this is true, but artists
also function as reporters. We function as scientists,
philosophers, story tellers, historians, court jesters, and
sometimes martyrs. It all depends on how we envision
ourselves; and that is the question: " how shall I envision
myself ? "
I have struggled recently to accept the idea of the artist as
disciplined and organised, a businessman, v.s. the artist as
disheveled madman, afflicted by his own genius, unable to
manage his life. The myth of the tortured artist is very
compelling, but not necessarily profitable for the artist himself.
Nevertheless, I see that much great art, like humor, comes
from the same place: hard times. Such art and humor reflects
resilience in the face of suffering, horror, and misery. How can
I sing a song about a broken heart if I have never had one?
How can I write a story about hunger if I have never been
hungry? Perhaps it can be done; because we, as artists, are
people who are guided by our imaginations. There are no
limitations on the art that can be created; regardless of our
actual experiences, or lack thereof. Only time will tell what
remains when the dust settles.
The key thing for the artist is to continue to create; through
good and bad times, both for himself, and for the sake of
society at large. I would not venture to say who is more
important to a society; an artist or a reporter; an artist or a
scientist; an artist or a historian. They are all important, and
need one another. The reporter holds a mirror up to society;
the artist holds a mirror up to societies' soul. My current quest
is to integrate the various strands of art with which I am
working: drawing, painting, sculpture, and printmaking,
infusing them with a subtle sense of humor. I hope to add
humor to my sculpture, for example through a greater use of
abstraction; leaning less towards the "high art" of
Michelangelo, and more towards ancient Mexican and African
tribal art.
I believe cohesiveness in my art will emerge over time; as I
continue to work. Common strands will begin to emerge
through the act of creation. I hope to create work that speaks
for itself; using words that augment, rather than detract from
my actions in the studio; and to have a positive and lasting
effect on society.
