ON A CLEAR DAY YOU CAN SEE ETERNITY
Lately I found myself engaged into some discussion wether an artist should have his own style or as my partner put it “style is just a kind of logo” and of no use to the artist as he will find himself imprisoned and get bored while doing the same all the time…
Being an artist myself and working on surreal digital images,
I think it’s quite important to be recognizable with your own style and it doesn’t mean that you’re stuck doing the same all the time and running in circle.
As the human condition is shared by us all, if you try to communicate something through your art and you do it in your own typical style it will also speak to a wider audience .
The communication and appeal of the art can be either intellectual and/or emotional. But as most things in life, finding your way is a lifelong quest of refinement and evolution.
Or to put it differently, if you’re trapped in a room that is locked, another way of looking at it could be: the world is locked and you’re free.
A friend wrote the following:
“At least from my perspective, the discussion wasn’t about “trying” to not have a style, but about simply not having a single style, as opposed to striving for a uniform “signature” consciously. I certainly have nothing against such obvious “branded” artists as Tanguy and Magritte. For myself, it was simply a matter of either preferring attempts at new approaches, or - more likely - desperately searching for anything that works, considering my limited technical abilities. For the most part it was never a matter of technique at all, but more just a poetic exploration which sometimes revealed itself via similar things (as in a series), and sometimes led me down dark little alleys. ”
“So although there are obvious examples of what you speak of: the consciously “not having a style” because you don’t have a clue, I think there is also a “stylesness” based upon the fasct that the creator simply doesn’t put much effort into certain surface qualities, or is simply not exploring “great statements” but rather digging about in a smaller garden, and trying to make the most of it.”
” Because what we usually call style is built from two components:
1 - what you are (if that may be identified which I do not think is possible or if it is possible then it is a mutilation).
2 - what you are dealing with - the problem, question, idea, obsession.
The result is usually that when you change the problem, question, idea, obsession you are dealing with, then your “style” tends to change accordingly. That’s not always true, that’s just often true. ”
…could it be that to overcome the feeling of getting bored/stuck in life/art is the challenge that makes what you’re doing something special?
Digging deeper on the same spot/style until you’re not bored any longer instead of going to another place. Having a full menu and not leaving after the starters…
This one is called “CURRENT STATE OF MIND”
and one of 2005 new paintings.
“The situation got complicated by some aspects of the Romantic spirit -
and yet Romantism was certainly not a bad thing at all - and both
questions of “boredom” as a reason for action and “doing something
special” as a reason for action belong to a perspective that was set-up
by the Romantic movement.
(Actually they are only parts of the complete romantic perspective.)
When discussing on “style”, the idea was more to redirect the focus on
the non individualitic aspects of Art which tend to be the ones that
posterity “filters”. And for good reasons, since they are the ones that
serve the future of mankind once an artist is dead.
Work is boring. Even Art work may be at some moments, even if freely
chosen and at the cost of high risks, as is most often the case even
today. But boredom is a weak reason for making choices. I would even
tend to say that it is of no value at all.
The alternative, I think, is more between horizontal exploration
(exploring multiple paths) and vertical exploration (exploring one path
as deeply as “of interest”).
An actual exploration strategy - and most probably an effective one - is
a balance between the horizontal and vertical approaches.
The “right” strategy is the one which fits with the
question-problem-sensation, whatever the artist is dealing with.
Most of the time, an artist does not know what he is actually dealing
with and to some extent “must not” know what he is dealing with (Duchamp).
In Art like in any other field of human activity, the point is usually
not to answer questions but rather to ask valuable questions, that is,
questions that help the human adventure getting further and deeper.
Questions that are “of some consequences”, in other terms, within the
scope of an artist’s life of course, but also to the extent possible,
beyond.”
My answer to this :
As a great believer in life before death I really can’t get a kick out of hoping at some Posterity-Melitta filter that some guys after me put over my work to squeeze something useful for humanity out of it.
The artist/prisoner who wants to escape from his emotions by digging a way out, if he’s digging somewhere between vertical/horizontal, most of the time comes out directly at the superintendents office and get jailed again.
But this is all theory and all those questions never come into the mind of someone creating something. This might be an individualistic point of view but how could it be otherwise? May be I should say duovidualistic point of view as I’m sitting next to myself looking at this guy playing with a mouse…
