I guess the way I feel comes from the way I was raised. I feel like art is for the people, so the people (all included) should be able to see it. Who cares if they don't get it? If a four-year-old walks up to van Gogh's Starry Night, they probably will think it is pretty. Most likely, they will not understand the theology and serenity of the painting because they are old four years old. I ask the question. What is wrong with pretty art?
I suppose my time in art school has only produced bitterness and frustration at the lack of understanding I have from my classmates. So I want to make pretty art. There is more of a market for a picture of a pretty flower than of a photo of a nude person standing in a field with blood dripping from the slit in their throat while their talons are warding off a pack of murderous rabbits. But it's art.
In the name of art, please stop.
There is nothing wrong with pretty art. I enjoy a well-done portrait as much as the next person. But what I do take issue with in this post is you asking others to stop. The person drawing the nude with the blood and the talons and whatnot has as much right to make that art as you do to draw flowers or a cat in a window. You don't have to look at the nude in the field. The person drawing it doesn't have to look at your window cat. But you both have the right to make what you are making. That is what free speech is all about.
ReplyDeleteAs for the "market" for pretty pictures versus bloody nudes... you would be surprised. Fetish artists and pornographers make lots of money doing what they do. Not that you have to do that by any means. Just thought I would point that out.