i've always believed that having to intellectualize something greatly means you have problems just accepting the source material for what it is. yes, there is "deep" art and whatnot, but almost every artist i know just creates because they love to and have -surface- ideas, not because they have some impossibly existential ponderings that need to be expressed via art.
queenston

Loving what you do is SO important!  And it’s also important for people to accept that both “intellectual/high-brow/meaningful/representative” art as well as “abstract/spontaneous/instinctive/visceral art” are valid.  

What gets to me most is when people make the latter, and then try to pass it off as the former, as if they had this really deep idea from the very beginning.  Or worse, when “artists” make art not for the love of it, but just to try to get attention or shock with minimal effort.  To me, that’s not really expressing through art, that’s being a con-man.  Which, granted, can be a great way to become famous and rich, if have no integrity and you’re really good at BSing.

When I told this to my Modern Art teacher, he said if it was so easy, I should do it.  To be honest, I could, and I think I’d be great at it. I could think of a million weird installations to make in museums that would make people scratch their heads and try to decipher a meaning out of.  But personally, I like to use my art as communication- chiefly storytelling.  And storytelling doesn’t work if your message is completely unintelligible.

Posted 1 year ago
21 notes
Tagged: queenston, ask, .
  1. seanmonster said: Wow, your Modern Art teacher was a dick.
  2. yamino posted this