I am an artist. Few people would suspect this if they met me on
the street. Being an artist in not something that shows any more than being a dentist or surgeon. But you
can tell the difference between a dentist or surgeon and a quack by the work that they do. The quack may
sound good and show the proper credentials, but the end product is obvious to anyone. Not so with the today's
artist. The art museums are filled with things that are questionable to the average eye, and considered blatant
quackery by a growing number of artists. The frequent comment on much of today's painting and sculpture is
"my kid could do that". In other words, the work does not display a certain quality of sophistication
normally associated with art.
Another comment is a question "You call that art?".
Out of politeness, the question is seldom directed at the person who produced the product, but more at the person
or persons responsible for displaying it as "art". Here in we get to the "Emperor's New Cloths"
adage. The work displayed shows little or nothing of what it is suppose to be, but the viewer must take the
word of an "art authority" that it is not only art, but art worthy of being displayed in a art museum.
Those who cannot see the "cloths" are considered by the cognoscente to be uneducated or lacking intellegence.
Artist's who cannot see the "cloths" and criticize the lack of standards are judged to be retrogressive,
and narrow minded.
I believe art is obvious to the unbiased viewer and all works that
are in the art museums are not art. I say, do not trust the art authorities, trust common sense. The
words of artist, scholar, and eminent art educator Virgil Elliott who posted this on the GoodArt art forum, mimic
my own sentiments about what
distinguishes an artist from a non-artist. I thank him
for allowing me to include it in my " Thoughts" page.
Quote from Virgil Elliott.
"An artist can make art with the simplest tools: charcoal, pencils, chalk,
are among the simplest. An artist can perhaps make art with cameras or computers if he or she chooses to, but that
does not mean that whoever uses cameras and computers in an attempt to make art is an artist, or that the result
is art. Too many photographers just shoot large numbers of pictures, throw away the bad ones, and then proudly
display the best shots, which might actually be no more than lucky accidents.
There must be some way to distinguish an artist from a non-artist, or the term
is meaningless. The artist's power of observation, sometimes called the "eye," i.e., the ability to see
with supernormal clarity, is more highly developed than the "eye" of the non-artist. This development,
which is actually not in the eye but in the brain, is the result of training and much practice. This training begins
with drawing what we see. The degree to which our powers of observation are developed can be readily demonstrated
by drawing. Any real visual artist will be able to draw accurately with a pencil or charcoal, whether his or her
preferred medium is painting, sculpture, computer art, photography or whatever. I do not consider anyone an artist
who cannot draw well freehand. There are many levels beyond that, but that's the basic starting point."
Virgil Elliott
(The GoodArt Forum can be joined by going Brian Yoder's site on my links page)
(Other writings by Virgil Elliott can be read in ARC {Art Renewal Center}- see my links page)