On Art and Self Expression
In my last post, I said:
I think that pure art is indeed a spontaneous manifestation of the self, but nothing is a pure art. In music, for example, there is an underlying structure, the structure of harmonics, as well the complex interaction of notes, that we must conform to; we create in the form of this structure. In visual art, the structure you work with in is the way that the colors interact, the way they mix together on the canvas. Fanart, for example, is the projection of a person's love and admiration for a character or series, into an artistic form that can be understood.
Without a universal structure with which we could appreciate or interpret works of art, they would only make sense to the creator.
Indeed, you could say that all art is the expression of the self, and that in each art form is a balance, between what can be appreciated by others, and between the degree of individuality that can be conveyed through it. These two, however, are not always diametrically opposed. I will now start with the creation of art:
The writer Franz Kafka once said:
"The tremendous world I have inside my head. But how free myself and free it without being torn to pieces. And a thousand times rather be torn to pieces than retain it in me or bury it. That, indeed, is why I am here, that is quite clear to me."
Now it may seem paradoxical that I start with a quote from an artist; however, to him, literature was an art. He, like any visual artist, musician, or video game designer, was a creator; literature was his form of self expression.
With any work of art, the end product inevitably different from what one envisioned.
There are countless reasons for this:
The most prevalent issue is that the the technical proficiency of the artist limits his or her ability to create.
For example, though I may have a very clear conception of Rachmaninoff's second piano concerto in my head, I am not a pianist; there is no way I would actually be able to play such a piece. This inherent gap, between the envisioned end product, and what one's own technical proficiency can create, has always been a major source of frustration for me, and, I imagine, countless others. It is obvious that, to become a prominent artist, one must practice, practice ,and develop the skills necessary to reach towards your envisioned end result.
Another common issue is that, sometimes, a structure just cannot accommodate the complexity of your idea, or is not well suited to. When one reaches mastery in one artist medium, one realizes the limits of the medium; what it is suitable for expressing, and what it is not suitable for.
As a society, we continually stress the importance of practice in order to become better. However, I believe that having a solid vision of what one wants to create is just, if not more, important. In the beginning, a good teacher will provide us a solid image of what we are creating; in this way, we begin to understand what we need to do in order to create a certain end product. Later on, in advanced classes, we are given more freedom; our powers to envision are challenged, and cultivated, by allowing us to choose what our end product shall be. We are judged not only by the degree of our proficiency, but how well we can conceptualize, just as we are in the real world. To have sudden and solid conceptualization; that is inspiration.
Though it may sound odd, after considerable practice in conceptualizing, I believe that one can learn to call out inspiration at will. After all, in any artistic structure, there are countless facets to keep track of, many of which are not readily apparent. That is why constant practice in conceptualization is necessary.
However, sometimes the scale of the structure will be too large, to possibly envision the entire piece in your mind. Take a symphony for example. One may have a clear outline of it in your mind, but there is no way for you to construct the entire piece in your mind. There is a necessary separation of parts; working on it piece by piece, and them bringing those together afterwards. For novices, even the simplest forms may be hard to envision fully, but masters can form even the largest of constructions within their minds.
Edit: One of my friends remarked that, that spontaneous manifestation ISN'T art, and it is the farthest thing from art there could be; here is my response:
It is certainly undeniable that you must work within any medium of art with methodical dedication, and that you must carefully examine every inch of a piece, carefully crafting every iota with your individual expertise. The reason that I spoke of a spontaneous manifestation is because many would argue that is the most clear expression one can make, and the only way to bring out the all the conscious and unconscious forces driving you. But, something like pollack painting is art only to him; it is merely nonsense to us.
It is exponentially more difficult to create a piece of art that can be understood readily by many, and still retain that degree of individuality. A work that can do both is a true masterpiece; a splash of paint on a canvas is merely an act of individual expression, and there are certainly many views of whether or not that unfathomable individual expression can be construed as art.
I still have much to elaborate upon, especially concerning the interpretation and understanding of art; so I'll make another post soon.
I think that pure art is indeed a spontaneous manifestation of the self, but nothing is a pure art. In music, for example, there is an underlying structure, the structure of harmonics, as well the complex interaction of notes, that we must conform to; we create in the form of this structure. In visual art, the structure you work with in is the way that the colors interact, the way they mix together on the canvas. Fanart, for example, is the projection of a person's love and admiration for a character or series, into an artistic form that can be understood.
Without a universal structure with which we could appreciate or interpret works of art, they would only make sense to the creator.
Indeed, you could say that all art is the expression of the self, and that in each art form is a balance, between what can be appreciated by others, and between the degree of individuality that can be conveyed through it. These two, however, are not always diametrically opposed. I will now start with the creation of art:
The writer Franz Kafka once said:
"The tremendous world I have inside my head. But how free myself and free it without being torn to pieces. And a thousand times rather be torn to pieces than retain it in me or bury it. That, indeed, is why I am here, that is quite clear to me."
Now it may seem paradoxical that I start with a quote from an artist; however, to him, literature was an art. He, like any visual artist, musician, or video game designer, was a creator; literature was his form of self expression.
With any work of art, the end product inevitably different from what one envisioned.
There are countless reasons for this:
The most prevalent issue is that the the technical proficiency of the artist limits his or her ability to create.
For example, though I may have a very clear conception of Rachmaninoff's second piano concerto in my head, I am not a pianist; there is no way I would actually be able to play such a piece. This inherent gap, between the envisioned end product, and what one's own technical proficiency can create, has always been a major source of frustration for me, and, I imagine, countless others. It is obvious that, to become a prominent artist, one must practice, practice ,and develop the skills necessary to reach towards your envisioned end result.
Another common issue is that, sometimes, a structure just cannot accommodate the complexity of your idea, or is not well suited to. When one reaches mastery in one artist medium, one realizes the limits of the medium; what it is suitable for expressing, and what it is not suitable for.
As a society, we continually stress the importance of practice in order to become better. However, I believe that having a solid vision of what one wants to create is just, if not more, important. In the beginning, a good teacher will provide us a solid image of what we are creating; in this way, we begin to understand what we need to do in order to create a certain end product. Later on, in advanced classes, we are given more freedom; our powers to envision are challenged, and cultivated, by allowing us to choose what our end product shall be. We are judged not only by the degree of our proficiency, but how well we can conceptualize, just as we are in the real world. To have sudden and solid conceptualization; that is inspiration.
Though it may sound odd, after considerable practice in conceptualizing, I believe that one can learn to call out inspiration at will. After all, in any artistic structure, there are countless facets to keep track of, many of which are not readily apparent. That is why constant practice in conceptualization is necessary.
However, sometimes the scale of the structure will be too large, to possibly envision the entire piece in your mind. Take a symphony for example. One may have a clear outline of it in your mind, but there is no way for you to construct the entire piece in your mind. There is a necessary separation of parts; working on it piece by piece, and them bringing those together afterwards. For novices, even the simplest forms may be hard to envision fully, but masters can form even the largest of constructions within their minds.
Edit: One of my friends remarked that, that spontaneous manifestation ISN'T art, and it is the farthest thing from art there could be; here is my response:
It is certainly undeniable that you must work within any medium of art with methodical dedication, and that you must carefully examine every inch of a piece, carefully crafting every iota with your individual expertise. The reason that I spoke of a spontaneous manifestation is because many would argue that is the most clear expression one can make, and the only way to bring out the all the conscious and unconscious forces driving you. But, something like pollack painting is art only to him; it is merely nonsense to us.
It is exponentially more difficult to create a piece of art that can be understood readily by many, and still retain that degree of individuality. A work that can do both is a true masterpiece; a splash of paint on a canvas is merely an act of individual expression, and there are certainly many views of whether or not that unfathomable individual expression can be construed as art.
I still have much to elaborate upon, especially concerning the interpretation and understanding of art; so I'll make another post soon.