random babble 04 - communication
*edit - I didn't like the phrasing, so I changed "I'm not a visual artist" to "I'm not an effective visual artist... effective meaning achieving what I think art should achieve." and removed musician from the equation, since I came to the conclusion later that I felt like I was playing music for the direct emotional connection.
I realized recently that I'm not an effective visual artist... effective meaning achieving what I think art should achieve. I realized that I'm really just an avid communicator... kind of a philosopher, but that feels like way too pompous of a term in our society. I think many people would say that visual artists and are communicators, but I personally think of those professions or endeavors as being about the 'art-form' more than the communication.
I think true visual art, music, dance and any truly 'artistic' pursuit is, in my opinion, about visceral emotional connection. I imagine many people would disagree, but I think that if any of those art-forms conform themselves so tightly to a literal idea that they can convey it clearly, they have become philosophy and moved away from really being that particular art-form. A literal painting is more like philosophy with a visual-aid for instance.
I might actually be a musician, because I generally communicate in a visceral way through my music. I just enjoy the music. I don't ever feel very compelled to write lyrics to my music (I often want to write them, but not because I feel like the music needs them... I just want to write).
I think I'm generally the same way with writing and that it falls into the same category. I like to write because I like to communicate. I appreciate very well written prose, poetry and literature, but ultimately I want to write because of the ideas, not because of the beauty or execution of the language. I do occasionally write prose or poetry, but it always feels like I'm forcing the artistry side of it to conform to the idea I'm trying to get out.
My painting instructor in college, right before I graduated, told me that he didn't think I was cut out to be an artist. Specifically he said I was more of an illustrator. At the time I took that as pretty insulting... since I felt like I had developed significant skills as an artist by busting my ass for years, and felt like I was more convicted about my 'art' than most of my peers. He also gave me a C... the only one I received in college, and kept me from getting the next level up of honors. Looking back now, I realize that he was right about the artist thing. I was not a visual artist... I was a communicator who wanted to learn visual art skills as a way to communicate. He was wrong about the C though. That was ridiculous.
The renderings of an illustrator are much more about direct communication of an idea, or direct illustration of a concept. I love illustration for that aspect. I definitely don't feel as emotionally drawn to illustration or the concept of blatant and direct communication, but ultimately I feel like direct, unfettered communication is more who I am.
Don't get me wrong -- it's all a gradient. I don't think people have to be one or the other consistently, or that either one of them is the better or right way to be. I have equal respect for emotion and intellect, and think that they are simply two different modes of communication. I just think that intellectual discussion is more about relaying data and emotional is more about human bonding or connection. I think that fine-art is about bonding and emotional connection, and illustration is about relaying information. I think that a good combination of the two may be possible, but I have tended toward the illustration and the intellectual. I often wish I was more emotionally driven, but I definitely appreciate the positives of being the way I am. I always WANT to be more emotionally evocative with my work, but it's like wanting to accurately describe how something feels... square peg in a round hole. Maybe I'll figure it out some day.
My cat is making a meow sound that sounds kind of like a demon. I'm going to go pet her and go to bed (assuming she's not actually a demon).
I realized recently that I'm not an effective visual artist... effective meaning achieving what I think art should achieve. I realized that I'm really just an avid communicator... kind of a philosopher, but that feels like way too pompous of a term in our society. I think many people would say that visual artists and are communicators, but I personally think of those professions or endeavors as being about the 'art-form' more than the communication.
I think true visual art, music, dance and any truly 'artistic' pursuit is, in my opinion, about visceral emotional connection. I imagine many people would disagree, but I think that if any of those art-forms conform themselves so tightly to a literal idea that they can convey it clearly, they have become philosophy and moved away from really being that particular art-form. A literal painting is more like philosophy with a visual-aid for instance.
I might actually be a musician, because I generally communicate in a visceral way through my music. I just enjoy the music. I don't ever feel very compelled to write lyrics to my music (I often want to write them, but not because I feel like the music needs them... I just want to write).
I think I'm generally the same way with writing and that it falls into the same category. I like to write because I like to communicate. I appreciate very well written prose, poetry and literature, but ultimately I want to write because of the ideas, not because of the beauty or execution of the language. I do occasionally write prose or poetry, but it always feels like I'm forcing the artistry side of it to conform to the idea I'm trying to get out.
My painting instructor in college, right before I graduated, told me that he didn't think I was cut out to be an artist. Specifically he said I was more of an illustrator. At the time I took that as pretty insulting... since I felt like I had developed significant skills as an artist by busting my ass for years, and felt like I was more convicted about my 'art' than most of my peers. He also gave me a C... the only one I received in college, and kept me from getting the next level up of honors. Looking back now, I realize that he was right about the artist thing. I was not a visual artist... I was a communicator who wanted to learn visual art skills as a way to communicate. He was wrong about the C though. That was ridiculous.
The renderings of an illustrator are much more about direct communication of an idea, or direct illustration of a concept. I love illustration for that aspect. I definitely don't feel as emotionally drawn to illustration or the concept of blatant and direct communication, but ultimately I feel like direct, unfettered communication is more who I am.
Don't get me wrong -- it's all a gradient. I don't think people have to be one or the other consistently, or that either one of them is the better or right way to be. I have equal respect for emotion and intellect, and think that they are simply two different modes of communication. I just think that intellectual discussion is more about relaying data and emotional is more about human bonding or connection. I think that fine-art is about bonding and emotional connection, and illustration is about relaying information. I think that a good combination of the two may be possible, but I have tended toward the illustration and the intellectual. I often wish I was more emotionally driven, but I definitely appreciate the positives of being the way I am. I always WANT to be more emotionally evocative with my work, but it's like wanting to accurately describe how something feels... square peg in a round hole. Maybe I'll figure it out some day.
My cat is making a meow sound that sounds kind of like a demon. I'm going to go pet her and go to bed (assuming she's not actually a demon).