In practice.

So I wax on about invention in art a whole lot. I decided I better put my money(or at least my pride) where my mouth is and test that theory. In conjunction with my good friend Timothy Haslet and his group of amazing artists, I entered the Coupeville Wa arts festival. Small town show, but they bring plenty of people through the door. Using clear substances with invented "brushes" I attempted to paint an Octopi and shrimp using only the bending of light. Possibly one of the ugliest pieces I have ever created. But the process did capture light and produced a new lens for the viewer to see subject. It was awarded Peoples Choice. Which asks the question: Is process and interest more important than the aesthetic result? Interesting vs. the relatable. I'm still undecided on what that balance should be. 

Framed!

I have been asked why I create frames for my pieces. 

The craftsmanship aspect I respect the most about artist Kehinde Wiley is not his incredible paintings or background details. Its that he refused to relinquish control of even the most minute details. His frames and displays are always hand crafted. Carefully constructed and usually with elemental themes that adhere to his concepts. 

Why would any artist not utilize such a powerful visual component as a frame or placement. I try and take this concept a step further and symbolically integrate the frame into the artwork. Done correctly the frame and the art work are one. Some artist choose to abandon frames in the pursuit of pure art, but I hold a philosophy that a frame not only formalizes work, it creates an portal for the viewer. I don't want my art to work with its surroundings, thats interior decorating. I want to move the viewer out of the room.

Art is a language. Good art is invention.

Asking "What is art?" is like asking "What is the meaning of life". It's a big, opinion driven, multifaceted question. Here is a thought worth chewing on: 

Seeing as much of our understanding and communicating is visual... I think it is safe to see art as a universal language. One used for identity, common culture expression, aesthetics and invention. The one that intrigues me the most is invention. Art has been used as a vehicle for expressing invention forever. It is the fastest vehicle for conceptual thoughts to become representational or even tangible realities. Early Star trek invented the concept of the cell phone and Jule's vern novels and illustrations fueled a desire to create the submarine and space ship. But lets look past arts ability to create common understanding for future desires and look at invention in art. Jan Van Eyck's early point perspective, Leonardo's use of varnish layers, Monet's impressionism, Duchamp's urinal, Pablo's cubism...etc. Most commonly, fame in art comes down to who was first. First to try something.  But if there is nothing new under the sun (a practical philosophy)... How can anything really be original? I think it comes down to invented process with existing materials. Take snow for example. When a kid sees snow it is an alien and beautiful disruption in their world. They see it new, but with each passing year the snow starts to loose its luster. A good artist realizes their art process must be inventive enough to disrupt the viewer and revitalize their interaction with subject. The artist must invent a new "lens" for the viewer to see the subject, emotion or idea. That's why good art is so visually exciting. You see the "snow" with the same enthusiasm as a 5 year old again. Subject matter might not matter, but its inventive process in art certainly does. 

A Backhanded Compliment from Teenagers.

So... I made the classic mistake of showing a website before it's done. I did this with my AP class since they too will be required to build a web portfolio. When I got to my BIO, there was, what I considered, and inappropriate amount of hysterical laughter over my face. I carefully explained that this was a picture my wife insisted on and so what if it was a little... well... poserish (which it wasn't because I didn't even know I was being photographed). A little later a student explained it with an 80's flavor saying "We meant no disrespect, but it was like seeing Clint Eastwood on a trampoline." Which is by far the most backhanded compliment I have ever received.

(In Art) Subject Matter Doesn't Matter

Before you shoot me for discounting the human emotion or social injustices, let me clarify. I spend a significant portion of my life helping students create art. Like you would imagine, I often have students obsessing over which boy band member to draw and, left to their own devices, most teenage works of art would be comprise of celebrities, eyes, bleeding eyes, bleeding hearts, overly cute pets, various Halloween gore and mythical creatures all drawn with decidedly anime influences. You might think "Hey, it's their age and it's art and that's OK." And it is O.K. Some of the fore mentioned are rights of passage. Some we never grow out of. Some are just for fun. Subject matter is a function of preference and intended message, but an artists job is to flush out the intricacies and feel of a subject... to create greater aesthetic appeal, interest or even discomfort. 10 years of struggling to get students to see beyond their subject matter to the technical issues of style, depth, balance...etc, lead me to the rather abrupt saying "Subject matter doesn't matter." And what started off as a perfunctory way to move students beyond perpetually recreating cosmetic ad faces, somehow morphed into a much deeper philosophy for me. Here is why subject matter doesn't matter: the subject, whether a rock in a pile or an image for social justice, speaks for itself. The artist highlights a subject's interest, beauty or legitimacy by how they treat the work. The subject itself simply is. In the art world we tend to separate our selves from "The Work" wanting to believe it carries a life, a force of its own. As if "what" is made is some how more important than "how" it's made. Subject matter is often just a lens to see the broader scope of human contemplation. Interpretive understandings the viewer experiences comes from what the artist chooses to emphasize. In this regard, it has always been the artist that matters.