Listen to what i'm trying to Paint

I had done a conceptual piece of artwork for an animation production and I showed it to a peer of mine to get some feedback. I wanted to be sure that I was getting across the needs of the scene I was working on. A surprising thing occurred. As my associate looked at the piece of art, he started to go off on tangents about what my artwork was saying. He said it “evoked this” or “stated that” and as I looked at the work I had to furrow my brow and squint in an attempt to see what he was seeing. To this day I can’t be sure if that particular piece of work actually came across that way to him and that I had subconsciously tapped into some latent artistic genius within, or if he was just trying to impress me with the way he thought art was supposed to be received.

It has been a common belief in and about the artistic community for the past couple of generations that the meaning of a work of art is completely subjective and dependent upon the viewer of that particular piece. As an artist I disagree with that belief. When I conceive a piece of art and during its execution I’m much more focused on the why of what I’m doing rather than a thousand different unpredictable experiences that others may have with it.

The currently accepted attitude that art is completely subjective to the viewer, regardless of the artist’s efforts is dangerous for several reasons. The first being that it completely undermines the efforts and intent of the creator and the viewer runs the risk of missing the full meaning of what an artist is trying to communicate. It also gives a pass to unskilled or lazy artists who do poor work with the excuse that “it doesn’t matter what I do or how well I do it, because people are going to think what they will about it anyway.” That philosophy on art is permeating art training in the most prestigious schools in the world, with the effect of pumping out charlatans claiming to be artists.

My career as an artist has always stood on my ability to execute pieces of art that communicate clearly and directly with its audience. The experience of creating something and having someone share what they see in my work and understanding what it was I have created has always been the most rewarding artistic experiences. It’s like bridging a gap when you see the same excitement in someone viewing your work as you felt when creating it. Who doesn’t enjoy being understood?

How many times have you seen a conversation between two people who barely speak the same language, and instead of trying to say things in a clearer way to be understood they simply keep repeating the same thing over and over and often with increasing volume? Do they really think that will make something click with the other person? How frustrated have you been when you can’t understand what someone is saying? Do you just throw your hands up and say, oh well, I guess whatever I think they mean is more important?

Art is communication, it is a language. As with any communication there is a give and take. If I were trying to explain something to someone, the clearer my intent is and the stronger my command of my language, the better chance I have of being understood by the other person in a conversation.

There certainly is the other side of that communication, that of how it’s received by the other party. What experience they’ve had, what emotional state they’re in when receiving it, and frankly how much they may or may not care about what is being said. Being mindful of how the other party will receive my communication will affect how and what I attempt to say. However, that does not trump the intent of what I’m saying.

A skilled artist is in control of what they create, not the potential viewer. When speaking of painting master artist Richard Schmid said; “I don't hope when I paint. I know what's going to happen. At least I trust that I know where I'm headed. I rarely put down a stroke hoping it will look right." (White Pine DVD). This tells me that he is in control of what he’s doing, that he has a clear vision that he himself is trying to execute. He’s not focused on what people are going to say or how they are going to interpret the work, he’s focused on what the next stroke of paint will do and how it will effectively convey his vision. Even an artist such as Jackson Pollack who seemed to have a chaotic approach to his work had a clear intent on what colors and patterns of paint he applied. He used a great deal of control in his artistic creation.

This isn’t to say that all art is simple and direct. Just like any writing, it can be full of complexity and grandeur. The artists intent may well be to challenge his viewer to think and rationalize and feel beyond basic aesthetics. If that’s the artist’s intent then that can be powerful communication. A viewer certainly has the right to identify with what is being said based on their own personal experience with the subject. But if the viewer adopts the idea that their experience with the work is of greater value than the artist’s then they run the risk of the most valuable aspect of the artistic language; that of receiving the artist’s communication. How many hours did that viewer struggle over every dab of paint applied to a canvas or every brick of clay attached to an armature?

If we as a people hold onto the idea that the value of a piece of art is only measured by the opinion of the viewer are we implying that the artist and his intent are of no great importance? If that were true, then what purpose would an artist have to create? Or at least to show what they have created to anyone? What if everything we did had no purpose unless it was subjected to the will and approval of others?

I challenge both the art community and enthusiasts to look at art as a dialog. An artist shouldn’t use the reasoning that an audience will feel and understand whatever they want as an excuse to not clearly state their intent with a piece. And a viewer should never let their emotional reaction blind them to what the true purpose an artist has in mind when creating. It is only when both these aspects are equally and directly served that art is no longer an ambiguous experience but a powerful form of communication.