Sometimes I find myself wondering about art and art critics. It seems like most things of an artistic or creative nature don't get taken seriously unless they are also seriously weird or seriously "something nobody's ever seen before."
But is that really necessary?
Public art in Port Townsend, WA
Granted, I'm no art expert or art critic, however I've seen plenty of work that has been very beautiful and moving without being all that unusual or original, in the greater scale of things.
Many years back, before we had the The Red Dragonfly Gallery (as a physical business), but I was still working at my previous Gallery, I became good friends with a number of glassblowers.
One of them was actually what you'd call a "Lamp Worker," and he worked with encasing little tiny glass flowers and insects that he painstakingly created with tweezers and colored glass and then put inside clear crystal to make glass paperweights.
They were certainly very traditional. And there really was nothing weird or "never seen before" about them. After all, he was using techniques that had been around for hundreds of years. But all pieces were original, and all were "birthed" from his own vision and creativity.
I looked at his work, and I often thought to myself that if anybody wanted to stand up and claim that this was not real art, they really would be lacking an understanding of the basic nature of art.
What's my point here?
A lot of really good work gets overlooked because it lacks the "sensationalist" aspect.
I suppose it's a bit like the news. We see and remember and learn about these huge fantastical stories, but there are lots of little pieces of genuine news that happen everywhere and no matter how you look at it, those little bits of news are just as much news as the giant story that blares from the headlines.
Part of what is making me write this, is that I am beginning to get involved with my own art again. My heart is neither that strange, nor that inventive, nor that original. However, most people who look at it would say that it is — indeed — an art form.
In conclusion, I would surmise that art is pretty much like beauty in the sense that it is in the eye of the beholder. Additionally, art is largely an "inside experience" for those who view it, and thus not something we need validation for based on what some Big City Art Critic or art expert says constitutes "good" art.
Just something to think about... what do YOU think? What makes something "good" art? Leave a comment!
Thanks for reading!
20200914
H0006/0242
All images are my own