COMMUNICATION
Anyone who has ever been concerned with the subject “art” probably found himself confronted with the question of “What is art?”
Well, I recall the first time I heard such question; I was in my 10th grade and had just made the first choice towards my specific formation. I remember to be scared that I couldn’t stand out (until then it had been easy to do so since I was in a regular class). I didn’t want it to be easy, but it scared me the failure, has I think it does for most people, I guess. The truth is that the answer I learned then was quite simple: art is communication. It was a satisfactory answer: simple and straight to the point.
Only later at college, this answer that was the firm base of my convictions about art was shaken. Subjects like aesthetics talked about great personalities that had taken their time to think about art; these great personalities started and ended their explanations with the same question of what art is.
At a time of fragile certainties I accepted (with some reluctance) that I would never make peace with that doubt and that I would work on its side. However, having continued to develop my works and observing the others that appeared on the walls of my college I realized something that really annoyed me: the despise that many works showed for technique. I no one was talking about it. Something I found very strange.
At that time I reinforced my position towards the technique subject and that made be go back to the “communication” answer of early years. Art could, and maybe even was, communication – and that said we could rescue technique. Techniqueisart’slanguage. This is actually a personal premise. With this I firmed my position – technique is highly important – and not everyone realized that. I am not defending virtuosity, though I think those who have it can do almost everything, but I think that if we communicate with someone, that person has to understand you. Otherwise communications stops existing. That is to say that if I were writing to you using the letters the way I wanted instead of bothering to form actual words, probably you wouldn’t understand anything – and it wasn’t your fault.
There is a big difference between what art was before and what art turned to be today. And following previous statements there is also an unnecessary gap between design and art. Art could and should be holding hands with communication design, and maybe it would be so if the so called “creative” had their creativity mastered, or maybe their personalities or maturity mastered, I guess.
I know that art is taking an “odd” path and I don’t think that it is an odd like the one of the important works of art of the avant-gardes. Those works had an interesting meaning in terms of language expression and in fact that never destroyed the message.
I complain but I can do “my” art the way I want, but I’m afraid that there is less room for it everyday in the art field. I’m looking for a solution for not “making art”, but to communicate – not to communicate a tantrum or a caprice, because let’s face it no one cares about that – but communicate important things, and I’m afraid I can only find that today on graphic design, more than in the plastic art field itself.
If you thought that I was going to answer you the question of what art is forget it. I won’t impose myself like that. But I can tell that as far as I am concerned today its good sense not to drawn on the philosophic doubt (as much as I like philosophy) and stick by the simple answer of communication. If the answer doesn’t turn to be communication I really have no idea of what art can be. And I say it humbly – I don’t have the maturity or knowledge not to do so.
And making a slightly different speech, instead of finishing this with the question with which I started I’ll finish with the same answer.
MJoana
Anyone who has ever been concerned with the subject “art” probably found himself confronted with the question of “What is art?”
Well, I recall the first time I heard such question; I was in my 10th grade and had just made the first choice towards my specific formation. I remember to be scared that I couldn’t stand out (until then it had been easy to do so since I was in a regular class). I didn’t want it to be easy, but it scared me the failure, has I think it does for most people, I guess. The truth is that the answer I learned then was quite simple: art is communication. It was a satisfactory answer: simple and straight to the point.
Only later at college, this answer that was the firm base of my convictions about art was shaken. Subjects like aesthetics talked about great personalities that had taken their time to think about art; these great personalities started and ended their explanations with the same question of what art is.
At a time of fragile certainties I accepted (with some reluctance) that I would never make peace with that doubt and that I would work on its side. However, having continued to develop my works and observing the others that appeared on the walls of my college I realized something that really annoyed me: the despise that many works showed for technique. I no one was talking about it. Something I found very strange.
At that time I reinforced my position towards the technique subject and that made be go back to the “communication” answer of early years. Art could, and maybe even was, communication – and that said we could rescue technique. Techniqueisart’slanguage. This is actually a personal premise. With this I firmed my position – technique is highly important – and not everyone realized that. I am not defending virtuosity, though I think those who have it can do almost everything, but I think that if we communicate with someone, that person has to understand you. Otherwise communications stops existing. That is to say that if I were writing to you using the letters the way I wanted instead of bothering to form actual words, probably you wouldn’t understand anything – and it wasn’t your fault.
There is a big difference between what art was before and what art turned to be today. And following previous statements there is also an unnecessary gap between design and art. Art could and should be holding hands with communication design, and maybe it would be so if the so called “creative” had their creativity mastered, or maybe their personalities or maturity mastered, I guess.
I know that art is taking an “odd” path and I don’t think that it is an odd like the one of the important works of art of the avant-gardes. Those works had an interesting meaning in terms of language expression and in fact that never destroyed the message.
I complain but I can do “my” art the way I want, but I’m afraid that there is less room for it everyday in the art field. I’m looking for a solution for not “making art”, but to communicate – not to communicate a tantrum or a caprice, because let’s face it no one cares about that – but communicate important things, and I’m afraid I can only find that today on graphic design, more than in the plastic art field itself.
If you thought that I was going to answer you the question of what art is forget it. I won’t impose myself like that. But I can tell that as far as I am concerned today its good sense not to drawn on the philosophic doubt (as much as I like philosophy) and stick by the simple answer of communication. If the answer doesn’t turn to be communication I really have no idea of what art can be. And I say it humbly – I don’t have the maturity or knowledge not to do so.
And making a slightly different speech, instead of finishing this with the question with which I started I’ll finish with the same answer.
MJoana