Okay, so how can artists breathe life into their creations? It would seem impossible to share or give something you do not posses. Saving the discussion of what constitutes life for another time, let’s consider two ways that life is imparted.
While it may seem I am banging you over the head with my core beliefs, I want to simply state the first, which will lead naturally to the second. Whether you believe in the Creator God or not, if you have ever created anything worthwhile or of permanence, you have had a “GOD MOMENT.” Some refer to divine inspiration, while others give credit to a muse, and most are unable to function productively without either. My favorite reference for this is “Unless The Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it,” (Psalms 127:1.) You may well perform all the acts associated with giving birth, artistically or literally, yet unless the source of all life is participating, no life is possible.
So the argument that many non-believer artists perform and produce living art would seem to negate the first assumption. However, consider how in Genesis, God made a sculpture of a man and then breathed His own life into the form to make it a living creature. God put part of Himself into His creation. Therefore, I also assert that if you have ever created anything worthwhile or of permanence; a living thing, you have given a part of yourself to that creation, regardless of your beliefs.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
What Makes Something Art?
I refuse to make a promise about cranking out these blog entries, when you and I both know that I will inevitably get distracted by an idea and spend months in the studio following where the inspiration leads me. It is not that I do not want to write these blog entries, it is just that the studio work tends to be more exciting. That said, I do have at least three short posts I can share. We will just have to see where this goes after this first one.
My meditations lately have been about the nature of art and creativity. This is in part due to a couple of discussion groups I have attended, some lectures my wife was wise enough to drag me to and some reading I have done on the nature of intellect as it pertains to art.
So, I began wondering what really makes someone an artist, and what makes their work art. Some say, like Warhol, it is anything you call art or "can get away with." If you say you are an artist you are. That doesn't really define it for me, so I asked these questions.
Is art simply technical mastery and the ability to faithfully render an image of a subject?
If that were the case you would have to call a camera or a photocopier an artist. These are fine artistic tools but do not guarantee the creation of art.
Is art the concept or thought process that someone conceives?
Unfortunately the expression of concept is done much too often in the name of art, but totally devoid of aesthetic merit.
Is art innovation or invention of new and different methods and techniques?
Although this lends interest and novelty to artwork, the argument could be made that many of the grandmasters merely followed long traditions when completing their masterworks.
Perhaps art is all and none of these things. I humbly submit that at the most basic level, art and true creativity is the ability to impart life (truth, beauty and goodness) into image, form, thing, etc. Without this element the work is merely craft and the production of soulless objects.
My meditations lately have been about the nature of art and creativity. This is in part due to a couple of discussion groups I have attended, some lectures my wife was wise enough to drag me to and some reading I have done on the nature of intellect as it pertains to art.
So, I began wondering what really makes someone an artist, and what makes their work art. Some say, like Warhol, it is anything you call art or "can get away with." If you say you are an artist you are. That doesn't really define it for me, so I asked these questions.
Is art simply technical mastery and the ability to faithfully render an image of a subject?
If that were the case you would have to call a camera or a photocopier an artist. These are fine artistic tools but do not guarantee the creation of art.
Is art the concept or thought process that someone conceives?
Unfortunately the expression of concept is done much too often in the name of art, but totally devoid of aesthetic merit.
Is art innovation or invention of new and different methods and techniques?
Although this lends interest and novelty to artwork, the argument could be made that many of the grandmasters merely followed long traditions when completing their masterworks.
Perhaps art is all and none of these things. I humbly submit that at the most basic level, art and true creativity is the ability to impart life (truth, beauty and goodness) into image, form, thing, etc. Without this element the work is merely craft and the production of soulless objects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
