L’art pour l’art?

I must admit that defining art is no easy task. Art as a concept is broad and fleeting, intangible and elusive; some consider it a luxury, while others claim it is essential. Needless to restate, art is, and remains, a divisive topic charged with sensitivity. It is an open field staging passions and novelties, a barn sheltering delirium and mania. The most sensitive and egotistical among us are often drawn to the arts. Art is a lot of different things for different people. In essence, it is something built on sensations and shaped by perceptions, making it so hard to grasp. I will try to narrow my scope here to focus only on two issues concerning art: approaches to creative work and what makes artists effective. I want to start by sharing an observation I have recently made that bothers me. It is what inspired this writing. I will end with my response based on some myths I have dispelled and my take on what art should be and what makes a great artist.

The observation that drove me to write all this is the hazy mist that surrounds the artistic world. Now, more than ever, the art scene is a monolithic blob of vagueness. We have stripped a subject inherently lacking concreteness, of any sense of standards, structure (no matter how fluid), and significance. In other words, art has become a space where people are vindicated for lacking meaning, purpose, clarity, responsibility, accountability, and, dare I say, talent. Not only is everyone excused for this, but sometimes even lauded as “different,” “original,” “ahead of their time,” “eccentric,” or whatnot for operating with the deficiencies I mentioned. My main concern is that this lowers standards and exterminates any nobility whatsoever. From my observation, something considered so valuable and almost sanctified is becoming hollow and downright frivolous.

How did we get to this? How did we ensnare ourselves in this paradoxical trap? What I mean by the paradoxical bind is our distorted perception of creativity and genius littered with contradictory myths and attitudes. We recognize creativity is generative by nature, yet we have little faith in our capacity to cultivate creative abilities through time. We think people are born either “having it” or “not having it,” which is indicative of a fixed mindset, yet talent requires practice and development to produce results (a view harnessed by a growth mindset). There are little signs of a similar vigorous drive to conquer art as there was towards science or empirical spheres. Art is treated somewhat like magic, where the magician does not reveal his secret. With magic, at least, the crowd is curious to know the secret and so asks. Not with art, unfortunately.

We mystify the creative process because we think it would lose its mystical allure if we could understand and explain it. We like to believe that ideas and inspirations come on a whim or that those who can conceive ideas do it effortlessly because they are gifted. We try to “get the creative juices flowing” or relax and hope the light bulb flashes over our heads. We think creativity is impulsive, random, and spontaneous or somewhat intrusive, that it almost possesses us and forces itself onto us out of nowhere. I am sure this is why many venturing along the artistic path fall victim to inconsistency, turbulence, frustration, and sometimes substance abuse. We have believed these myths for so long and continue to do so even beyond the age of reasoning, solely because we like it this way.

I am convinced that humans preserve the mystery of entities (the genius/gifted artist) and phenomena (creativity/art/original concepts and ideas) to avoid confronting one reality. And I think that reality is the fact that greatness has a high price. The two things that mainly hold back a person from greatness are fear and laziness. By protecting the mystery of creation, we allow ourselves to continue living a lazy life and avoid the fear of facing an uncomfortable reality that would require lots of effort to overcome. In this way, our fear and laziness are preserved to feed off each other. Our consensus allows us to stand back admiring creations and creatives without an explanation because we know, at least subconsciously, that would reveal what is in the way between where we are and where we could be. The insight would undress our unfulfilled potential. Naturally, this is a very discomforting discovery, so people avoid it at any cost. I think it has been this way for a long time, but the newer myths have added to this problem by diminishing greatness (both creations and creators).

What I call "the newer myths" are notions that went in the opposite direction of the elitist reverence complex and plunged the art discourse into an open-ended universe without bounds. Presumptions and claims characterizing these myths include - everyone is a genius in their own way, anyone can express themselves through art, not everything has to be understood, and anything can be open to interpretation. These have become cliches, which shows how pervasive such thinking is in the art scene. The newer myths have utterly eroded the value of effort, insight, skills, and perspectives by lowering the creative threshold and the barrier to entry into the artist category.

The prevalence of these attitudes has led me to believe that modern man lacks the discernment to process the complexities of modern life. Having discovered subjectivity and relativity, we have ascribed a chaotic barrage of mediocrity to subjectivity or taste. It is taboo nowadays to critique artwork or hold it to any standards. Those [whose works are] criticized hold defensive positions and respond with the guise of the work having “expressed what they felt.” I agree that everybody should have the right to attempt to express themselves in such ways, and creation is a therapeutic outlet. My only issue is when the lines between professionals/practitioners and hobbyists are blurry due to a lack of standards. This lack of distinction is not because of differences in taste but rather the absence of comprehensible standards.

Nowhere is this blurry vagueness more prevalent than in the creative spheres of painting, photography, and, to some extent, recorded music, or the so-called “performance arts” – regarding which I lack much knowledge, so will not dwell upon. I believe disciplines such as painting are more contaminated by vagueness compared to literature or theater due to their lower barrier of entry. Nearly anyone can paint on a canvas, and music production tools and distribution channels have become democratized now more than ever. Yet writing a complete novel is still as demanding as ever, though publishing has become more accessible. Perhaps it was hard to predict these effects. I cannot blame anyone for not anticipating how standards could corrode. We humans tend to envision the best-case scenario with innovations. The majority can only recognize the problems present in previous frames, not current ones. The promise of more accessibility is the wider reach and discovery of more artistic talent. It does not sound too far-fetched to me if we collectively also unconsciously lowered the standard to fulfill this expectation. But that is a topic for another day.

This degeneration I speak of begs the question few dare to ask in such spheres populated with fragile egos. “What separates an artist from everybody else making artworks?” “What is creativity amidst all creative endeavors?” I think the first helpful step for aspiring artists to take is clarifying their stances and attitudes when it comes to the matter. I have to reason by saying anyone pursuing elevated crafts and higher forms of expression/communication should transcend the average human condition in some regards and to some extent. If we cannot rise above some of our human limitations, why should we provide original, novel, profound, or moving perspectives for the rest of humanity? Skills aside, what gives us the license to cater to the human spirit [particularly through work that is hard to objectively assess and measure] if we ourselves have ordinary egos, biases, and worldviews?

Everybody feels emotions, and the human experience is universal at the core. If trained in the use of tools, anyone can produce outputs, be it carpentry, writings, sketches, recorded vocals, or photographs. Those who verse themselves in the activity long enough become craftsmen. What then marks artisans from craftsmen? The ability to intently embed meaning into their works. The facility with which a craftsman signifies layers of interpretable meanings and the efficacy with which one fluently communicates, makes one a true artist. It is an almost divine calling that few are capable of undertaking as it is, to a certain extent, removed from the mundane functioning of everyday life. The artist must climb mountains to master the tools, the language of the medium of choice, to refine one’s perspective, broaden one’s horizons, and push boundaries to further the depths of one’s conscientiousness. I believe it requires a translatable mix of philosophical bent, insatiable curiosity, and intensity to elevate craftsmanship into art.

Yet artists must also be grounded enough to be relatable and avoid excessive self-indulgence. My main concern is that people head to the two extremes where they either build fortification to justify mediocre output or become wildly self-indulgent through abstraction. Untalented artists also reach the heights of success by posing, while talented artists fail to crystalize their creations and connect with others. The creative realm and society at large are enablers for both. The times (as I have already pointed out) grant anyone trying their hand at art immunity against scrutiny. This charade works, especially if they can captivate audiences by enticing visceral reactions or through decent public relations and branding. We are guilty of mystifying the misunderstood artist, secretly delighting in the suffering of the brooding artist. We hardly celebrate the grounded artist who tends to other aspects of life with a level head and reasonable balance. We gravitate more toward radical stories of obsession, drama, and even insanity than tales of steady progress, holistic fulfillment, and sustained longevity. Why? As I pointed out earlier, the latter reminds us of the existence of our free will and the hefty price that comes with it.

I understand this path is not for everyone. I am well aware the points raised are a far cry from contemporary narratives and values. I put some of my ideas into writing because I struggle to reach an understanding with those I engage in this discourse with. Plus, my patience and tenacity to dissect and untangle such topics are rarely matched and reciprocated. Disparities of standards are viewed as differences in preferences, while divergence of taste is responded to as an attack on others’ judgment and thus, their sense of worth. A common issue I encounter is the inability to separate the art from the artist and distinguish works from artworks. The incapacity to differentiate what is impactful from what is entertaining is also a prominent characteristic of public opinion. Mass appeal is prioritized for this reason, and the confusion contributes to the vagueness that plagues art.

I will conclude with a few words to clarify my views. I aspire to be a well-rounded, dynamic, and versatile person with varied interests and abilities. A holistic approach appeals to me more than extreme achievement in one life dimension, such as a career or status. That being said, I want to master some crafts I undertake and decently engage in others to produce great art. Let me elaborate more on what I think that means.

Great art, to me, makes masterful use of multiplicity. A masterpiece is an artwork possessing deep understanding and self-consciousness of its medium, has a message (no matter how simple or complex, single or multiple), communicates the message fluently through its mastery of the medium, conveys the message with an intentional degree of subtlety as it deems fit, leaves some room for interpretation (after providing a decipherable central outlook), among other things. Aside from these criteria, I think that aspects such as appeal, medium of choice, subject matter (theme, genre, etc...), complexity of subject matter, means of delivery (style & approach), abstractness vs. concreteness, and so on are all a matter of taste. Both the producer and consumer can choose based on their likings. I personally opt for continuously expanding my taste throughout the course of my life.

I believe a great artist has the craftsmanship to execute ideas at a high level, the conscientiousness that probes into the realms of matter, emotions, thoughts, and phenomena, as well as the mental processes that transform and synthesize countless inputs and inspirations into condensed expressions. To me, the ideal artist harmonizes the left and right brain functions, matures with time, improves command over both content and form, explores both the breadth and depths of subject matters and progressively distills one’s artistic touch through prolific work output. I am convinced that such a combination can materialize through a steady, purposeful investment of time and effort. The price is worthwhile since the immense rewards are evergreen and sustainable bearing nourishing fruits for the souls of the artist and everyone else. That is the type of artist I aspire to become, beyond making art for art’s sake.