While I like realism, I pursue it less, because I see more value in total originality. It seems to me that, we should stray from the carbon copy footprints of Robert Bateman–and head into abstraction, whatever our subjects may be, in order to properly deliver the viewer from this realm–so that he or she will return to understand it better, having seen beneath the covers.
What I’m saying is, if you’re going to paint the scenery, why not take a photo? Impressionism and the like aside, where you have some room for interpretation–a super-strict adherance to the details only begets one acclaim for the discipline, not the enlightenment. When I observe a Bateman piece, I admire his skill–and marvel at his patience–but I never lose my mind, except perhaps in the inherent sublimity of the nature scenes–and the animals portraited. I never grow wiser having been struck by some sub-layer of meaning–or some other trick of the artist that took me away from the real world. Indeed, it is the opposite: I usually grow more clear about what the real world of nature really looks like. But we all know the true power of art is in its ability to enlighten, by changing how we look at things–not reinforcing what we already see. So realism is more like photography, in that it’s a snapshot of what’s around us–while abstraction is actually a funhouse mirror, letting us see our interiors in a different light. So, furthermore, abstract is the true art. It is the primary work that lifts the form above craft. It is not paint-by-number; it is re-draw the lines.
Moreover, where this thought all began, was in consideration of how originality drives the abstract form. It takes more creative gumption to make something out of nothing–and still make it good. I don’t mean all realism is easier than all abstract art. I mean, abstract art is harder to pull off at all–while realism is easy for the majority that take their time to learn the craft. That is why there are so many shows about how to paint nature scenes. Sure, there will always be somebody who will say they could never paint a nature scene, and that it was a tremendous gift. But there are no shows teaching abstract art for a reason: it is far harder to accomplish well. There is no template or blueprint, because abstract art is by its nature only good insofar as it is original. The few shows that do purport to teach abstract are simply selling people a style. So, what I’m saying is that there are fewer good abstract artists than there are good realists–however, the few abstract artists that are good–are very, very good. Plus, next to their work–all of the pieces of realism in the world together pale in comparison. Furthermore, on the other side, the majority of abstract art is actually very, very bad–and all taken together, can hardly stand tall next to one good piece of realism.
But what makes a work original? you may ask. Even if it is accepted that the good abstract art is the more original art–and therefore the truer art–the question remains as to how the few good abstract artists that exist achieve their cathartic craft at all, without a map to follow.
The key seems to be studying your field deeply enough that you become familiar with every style and genre–until you begin to try to emulate some of your favourites, out of homage to them–and then eventually shatter them all, letting the shards reassemble themselves into something uniquely you. Every detail should relate back to where your personally coming from, to be honest and unified–and then you will be assured of originality, and therefore guaranteed to satisfy at least one person: yourself. You will love what you have made–and in turn, others will love the unity and honesty of message that allows them to see the world in your shoes for a change.
Finally, as an afterthought, it occurs to me that the reason there are fewer good abstract artists than good realists may be because we are living in a visual age. The visual people are more susceptible to the highly visual media with which we interact–leaving them overdosed on the flickering lights–and disconnected from their inner landscapes. It is harder for them to see inside themselves, so they default to realism–which more aptly fits their optic-centric modalities–leaving the good works of the abstract to kinetic oriented minority: those whose live more inside than outside themselves.
You must log in to post a comment.