BLOG

"But such is the irresistible nature of Truth, that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing"
- Thomas Paine



I am an artist, but I am not an art expert. People often ask "what IS art"? It has so many definitions it seems, and its boundaries have been broken down beyond even any interface, until it is the concept that counts, the medium is but an inconvenient (though necessary) part of that which is really important, its soul. Art and soul.

Maybe art is soul, and to say it has no purpose in the world would be like saying the physical body has no purpose if the spirit exists. Art seems to carry us along the drama of life, providing meaning to our existence as it acts as the channel through which the soul can pass into this dimension, a dimension we can perceive and understand. We live in the physical world, a world of imperfect modes of expression, communication, or representation, such as language, medium, context or technique...and this challenges and engages us in a way that actually makes things more interesting, if not also frustrating.

Art sees beyond the confines of the visible world, into something which MUST exist at some point if it can actually be brought into being. It threads like a curl of smoke through the aperture of the subconscious , as automatic painting or as the reasoned and purposeful expression of a solid idea, sculpted and molded until it reaches its most proximate likeness to the original concept. Art seems to be the manifestation of a subconscious feeling or thought, and for the purposes of sharing, which art often likes to do, it is limited by the strength with which it can articulate itself before a blank slate (ie, someone who is not possessed of the same idea). It is the same problem that exists with language, which always evolves over time to better communicate the ephemeral notions which would be easily and instantly understood via psychic connections... if only we had that luxury.

Part of the beauty of art (as the spectator in this instance) is that it challenges us to sift through the obstacles which obscure its ultimate meaning, if there is a conscious meaning in it at all. To expect an immediate understanding of a work of art is a bit like taking the pleasure out of the "getting to know you process". Moments of revelation and discovery are like little fuses that burn for an instant and provide the same pure pleasure we all experienced as children, when the world was so new and all, so marvelous and magical. That is why people should learn to appreciate art, it would permit them to develop the forgotten joys of revelation and wonder, which are treasures most properly enjoyed and appreciated by children.

Art has moved along in the last century finding a different voice form it's predecessors or neighbors. It tries to be new and innovative, and if it is not sure that it is, might try to cloak itself in Artspeak and hope the smoke and mirrors provide enough of a distraction to validate it's claims. But if the point we have reached in art is to have transcended the need for art materials all together, and much of its importance has distilled itself down to pure concept, then does it matter anymore how it is conveyed? Does it really matter if it appears to have been done already, if its soul is a truth wanting desperately to be heard, irrespective of its body? Is art only fashionable, only valid (or cool) if it is presented differently from when the last of its kind was seen?

What if "concept", after art has been refined down to its bare essentials, which emerges from the subconscious by those whose filters are thin enough to allow it to pass, as the essence of art itself, separate from it's medium or body, and that resides in a part of the mind which we all possess, could ultimately make itself understood if only it had a chance to explain... even if it were dressed in last years outfit.