Art on a Pedestal

Re-defining Art and the Artist in the 21st Century

By Kathleen Knapp

Art. It is a three letter word that has sparked an abundance of controversy and conversation for centuries. There have always been discrepancies about what it means to create art—and what it means to be an artist. According to Wikipedia, “Artist is a descriptive term applied to a person who engages in an activity deemed to be an art”: a cryptic enough definition, and one that arouses more questions than it answers.

A more satisfying definition can be found at urbandictionary.com, which says, “1. Any attempt to define art is an attempt to destroy it,” which is a bold and indicting statement. Urbandictionary also says, “Art is the creation of beauty from nothing,” which is probably the most satisfying definition.

So why is art so fundamentally hard to define? Perhaps because the term is one of the few purely subjective concepts left in our language, and by extension, our society. Types of artwork range in media from the more classical painting and sculpture to things like film, jewelry, photography and even architecture, and artists everywhere are constantly pushing the boundaries of what constitutes art.

Historically, art has been a means of communication, education and decoration. From the murals gracing the walls and ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, to the romantic canvasses covering the walls in Gertrude Stein’s Paris apartment, art has been used for lofty, often intellectual pursuits, or alternatively, to educate the illiterate masses. Pictorial art pervaded even the written texts during medieval times and the Renaissance in the form of illuminated manuscripts, which featured pictures in the margins to tell the story written on the page. This combination of media was prevalent through centuries but was still executed and often owned only by those with exorbitant means.

The original art historian and critic, Georgio Visari, considered art a technical craft that only certain people with certain abilities, through the toil of process and technique, could create. He criticized many of the artists from the Northern Renaissance, catering more to the exacting oils created by the masters of Italy. This attitude was perpetuated through the eras of neoclassicism and romanticism, where the Academy in Paris defined what constituted proper artwork. In these cases art was available only to those elite members of society who could afford to either commission a work themselves or attend the annual showing at the academy.

The idea of creating art for the masses became more prevalent during the later modern and postmodern periods when art was communicating a desire of getting away from the bourgeois tradition of elitist showings and became more about public viewings where art could be seen by everyone. The first World’s Fair was a showcase for some of the most innovative and radical art in modern history. Throughout all this, however, the question has always been what standards should indicate whether a piece is art, and who should set that standard? More and more, art is being determined by the individual, on a totally subjective level.

But what is an artist? Everyone is familiar with the stereotype of the artist: a snooty Frenchman wearing a beret, holding a palette in one hand and frowning at a canvas. But in today’s society this conceptualization no longer seems relevant. There are as many different ways to create an artistic persona as there are to create an artistic piece. The job an artist must perform is similarly complex. According to artjunction.com, “An artist must generate new perspectives, simultaneously dreaming and concentrating, making connections [and undergoing] a series of personal challenges.”

With all this on their plates, it is no wonder that artists have a hard time defining themselves with a hard and fast image. The fact is, artists and art come in all shapes and sizes, all ages and all psyches. It is clear that all that is needed for good artwork is a true heart and a unique perspective. Art is dependent on what the artist wishes to communicate.

This concept of the artist is exemplified in today’s “starving artists,” a group that is in truth not starving, except in the sense that they are always hungry for something new to represent. There is an increasing trend toward artists in the middle class—classically trained or amateur but holding other jobs and interests regardless.

Charles Burgess, a contributor to dart.fine-art.com’s fine art forums, wrote a particularly strong response to a young college student seeking to become a “starving artist.” The man wrote back and said that starving had nothing to do with it. Creation was the key, and he was a man with a job, a family, and the proverbial house in the suburbs, painting purely for the pleasure of painting. He admonished that it is ridiculous to remain a radical hermit, eschewing a mainstream lifestyle, because the mainstream is where the life an artist draws inspiration from resides.

This attitude seems to be the pervading one among artists of today. Gone is the attitude that art is something inaccessible, something only a select few can understand. The exclusivity of the salon set is becoming obsolete with the advent of digital presentation and a broadening of available media. Increasingly art has become something participatory, in which the viewer is asked to interpret and act on what they are being presented with. In their own way, the artists of contemporary society seem more concerned with creating something patrons will categorize rather than tying themselves down with the laborious task of explicating their work. Though this increases the responsibility for the viewer, it in no way absolves the artist. The artist is now charged with creating something concrete enough to be understood yet ambivalent enough to mean something to each individual.

One such artist is Stillwater’s Rachel Marks. Aspiring to one day teach as well as create, Rachel is at the moment making preparations for her departure from university, where she studied studio art. Rachel is adamant that her art is universal—something that everyone should be able to glean meaning from, because art to her is something that should evoke an emotional response, which may be different to every person who views the painting. Her work incorporates multiple media, but her focus is clearly on music. Through her painting, her body and the instruments she recreates on canvas, Rachel shows the unique attributes of sounds, one symphony instrument at a time.

“Movement is key,” she says, “in showing the personality of an instrument.” Her portrayal of a bassoon, for instance, incorporates the warmth of the sound and focuses on the most unique feature of the instrument: the fourteen thumb keys that are controlled by only one thumb.

Rachel characterizes an artist as an investigator, like a scientist who investigates ideas and presents them to others. Her inspiration in this thought is DaVinci, who was as noted for his work in engineering as for his artwork, which in fact was engineering work in and of itself.

Rachel chooses to investigate music because she says it is important for people to understand. This will make a concept accessible and the art universal.

When asked about the limits of art, Rachel says, “I strive for a happy medium.” There are no real limits to art, but the limits of accessibility can be pushed too far, as in the example of Guillermo Vargas, an artist who starved a dog to death to show the process of hunger. In that case, it could be argued that the art lost accessibility because there was a large faction of people who were offended rather than inspired. But, notes Rachel, the viewers of that “piece” still had an emotional reaction.

As an artist it is important to catch the viewer’s eye, and there are no rules—unlike the rigid strictures of past centuries. With this freedom of expression, viewers are allowed to love or hate a piece without fear of offending the artist. Rachel maintains that “you can’t ask everyone to feel the same way about the same thing.”

Similarly, Jody Karr, an Oklahoma artist and member of the Oklahoma Art Guild, says in her artist’s statement, “My paintings begin with a good under painting or abstract design before incorporating the more literal aspects, allowing a fresh approach, and if mixed media is involved, an interplay between various media. I work with a variety of themes, techniques, and materials to stretch my boundaries to create artwork that is meaningful and evocative.” This approach to creating art makes for dynamic pieces that are easily interpreted by all viewers—because the meaning is not concrete to begin with.

This is not to say that art has lost its finer aspects. Rachel asserts that artists do hold themselves to a high standard, perhaps a higher standard than most people in relation to the ideas they are pursuing. Like a rabbit hole, an idea for an artist gets more intriguing the more knowledge is acquired. Rachel says, “I get almost obsessive with the idea of expressing music; there is always more to do with expressing the medium [and] combining music, art and dance.”

This fervor for constantly expanding the knowledge and aspects of a certain subject or ideal is what by turns inspires and tortures artists worldwide. Similarly, not everyone can be an artist. Rachel maintains that professional training is a must, because it gives one the means to create.

“It is about learning to translate ideas,” she says. “The execution is key because it directly impacts how far you are able to go in expressing an idea.”

Jody Karr agrees, citing her professional training and degree in art as key elements in her prowess as an artist. There is also an emphasis on the impact of knowing your field: learning the classics and seeing art through the ages is imperative for developing influences.

“My primary influence is Wassily Kandinsky, for his abstract ideas on translating sound into a visual composition,” Rachel says.  “Kandinsky’s bold colors and illustrated shapes are his own artistic interpretations of the form and emotion in music.” Letting the work of someone else influence her work has made her series cohesive and has helped her to express her own emotions, and hopefully inspire emotions in those who see her work. And she, like Kandinsky before her, uses the inspiration of music and movement to impact her visual pieces.

This is the perfect example of the continuing versatility of art as a genre. Communication with emotions is obviously not limited to only the visual sense. Words, music, and movement are all intrinsic in the newfound diversity of conceptualized art.

Film is an increasingly popular means for communicating a desired emotion and an effective way to impact a viewer. A film might be considered a mixed-media piece, combining movement and voice with music and visual imagery. The rise of the Indie film is what might be termed the movie equivalent of a painting. In general these films have been defined as “[films] often made on a low, almost bare bones budget (outside the studio system), that is heralded by the underground (read: hipsters) for its usually ‘new, fresh, and daring’ take on a number of issues such as: gay life, sex, gay sex, teen angst, gay teen angst, etc. Often leaves you with more questions than answers.” (Urbandictionary.com)

The idea of being left questioning at the end of a movie might be frustrating to some, but insomuch as these films are art, their penchant for asking questions and never providing an answer leaves the conclusion up to the viewer, just as a viewer of a painting is not told specifically what the painter was trying to communicate with his image. These films are meant to present an aspect of life for the individual interpretation of the viewer, and this unquestionably contributes to the premise that art is universal—that is, for the common man and perceived intellectual alike.

Money is still a factor for anyone hoping to make their life from their art. Just like any salesman, an artist must market his wares and hope that he is able to turn a profit from his endeavors. It may seem that in today’s climate and with the easy access to images and reproductions through electronic avenues, selling one-of-a-kind pieces would not be viable. Artists must often be businessmen as much as creative minds.

Reneé Phillips of Art Calendar magazine says, “many major decision makers in the art world often select a less talented artist who is professional and sociable over a more talented artist who lacks social and business skills.”

Knowing how to be marketable is key to making a living with art, and it is those artists who can combine artistic passion with business saavy who will be most likely to succeed in a world where electronic images could easily take precedence. But Rachel believes that the canvas will always be marketable, because ultimately the canvas is something tactile— a “window into a new idea” that incorporates texture and depth. The organic experience of seeing brushstrokes is incomparable, and this is something that is lost in digital reproduction. According to Rachel, technology is a valuable tool. It should be used to enhance art and to display it, but nothing will replace truly showing the creative process.

Of course, viewing the creative process requires an open mind. It is widely accepted that a piece of art is something that has come from the innermost sanctuary of an artist’s psyche, and viewing it is an intimate moment of communication. The message of a piece of artwork may be relative, but the experience is personal, and instead of being critiqued, a piece should be viewed with an attempt to understand what the artist was feeling and, indeed, what the viewer is feeling at seeing what is in front of him or her. This is where the viewer of art inherits responsibility—the responsibility to truly consider what she is seeing and not just speculate on what the artist was trying to accomplish.

As a consumer, the viewer has a responsibility to herself as well. It would be fruitless to purchase a piece of artwork that means nothing to the viewer emotionally or intellectually. Just as an artist is marketing his work, an art buyer must question the work and evaluate it based on personal preference.

Artwork is available in many different forms, from prints and posters to computer backgrounds. The pricing of original art can be daunting, but it is important as a consumer to keep in mind what went into the execution of the work. Most artists will factor in the cost of their materials as well as their own emotional attachment to the piece. It is important when paying for a painting to remember that what you are buying is not just a canvas and paint but truly a piece of another person’s heart.

Art is a bit of everything, just like the people who create it. The skill, thought, emotion and ideals that are put into different media and styles are what make art everlasting. It is a branch of society that has endured for centuries and will continue to endure in one form or another for centuries to come. Although it can seem lofty and almost immortalized because of its grandiose history, it is actually something organic that can be participated in by someone with even the simplest of tastes. And though conceptually enigmatic, it remains true that anyone and anything can be art and artist respectively, as long as there is a passion for the subject and dedication for the execution.