It was again, the artist in me that recognized that the movement had a fatal flaw that it chose not to contend with.
For me, successful art... truly excellent art is that which extends the artist's own realm of reality from his/her self to his/her audience. What an artist seeks to do in his/her audience is evoke a reaction that says, "I see where you're coming from." There's a second part which I'll explain in just a moment.
Art itself is a message, a form of communication. The artist is the sender, the audience is the receiver and a successful level of feedback is the indication that the audience understands what the artist's message is.
Now this is why I'm not the biggest fan of self-indulgent, abstract art. Art where the message itself is practically unintelligible. Because this is the message I'm getting when I'm looking at some miss mash of disconnected shapes and images, "This smarmy bastard is trying to fuck with us".
It's one thing to synthesize audience recognition through an odd or non-traditional perspective… Like replacing the head of a painted mannikin with a TV to express the soul-deadening effect that commercialized culture has on individuality… Or whatever. But it's another thing, completely, to crap in a bowl and call it great art.
No. What you have here is crap in a bowl.
Sorry, but I'm not buying that shit.
Now, in a way, I looked at Occupy as the modern art masterpiece edition of a political movements. By not caring if they could evoke the sense of perspective and, consequently a more sympathetic reaction and sustained political response out of… Yeah, the freaking 99%, they were going to drive straight into a wall of non-communicative misunderstanding about what the end result should be. The worse thing is that they prided themselves on not having a freaking endgame.
Without the endgame, what is your purpose? Where are you coming from? Why are you trying to extend this perspective of yours without connecting it me, in where I know what I'm supposed to do with it?
I mean, yeah. It's looks great (I guess). Nice conversation piece (I hope). Of course, you're trying to get me to buy it, to stick it over my well-apponited mantle place and hope that it adds color to the room.
But, wait a second here...
What is it actually saying?
Where is the inspiration for more understanding of great truths?
How is this crap supposed to inspire me to make my next move?
I have no freaking idea what this is all about and don't tell me, that if I don't get the message, that I'm not capable of understanding what you're trying to say.
No, motherfucker, you don't even know what message that you're trying to say and I'm not buying your bullshit.
Not a good reaction.
This is why I think that artists are engaging in self-indulgent bullshit when they splash paint on a wall and expect the viewer to come up with the meaning of all that freaking paint up on a wall. Dude, he's playing you all for suckers. It's like trying get paid for crapping in a bowl.
Now, I will say that I don't think that Occupy was trying to play everyone for suckers (and no, it wasn't crap in a bowl). However, there is no mistaking the fact that it did start in New York. Now I love New York, it's a great town with great people. But I also know that New York is full of people who expect everyone else to know what the fuck they're talking about, even when they themselves don't understand what the fuck they're saying. You're supposed to know, if you don't, then you must be an idiot.
That's how the Coasts turn off the flyover parts of the country, by the way.
It's also why that this is the exact same reason that you can show a Norman Rockwell painting anywhere in the country and everyone knows what it's about, but you can't expect the same universal reaction from a Jackson Pollock painting.
That's because the people who look at Jackson Pollock and see nothing more than a melange of paint drips, well those people are going to think that someone is trying to fuck with them. And if you're trying to relay a successful message in your art, you can't make your audience think that you're trying to fuck with them.
You want your audience to feel as if you are, as the artist, extending your own range of perspective into the viewer's own range. You want your audience to feel as if they are in your shoes… Because the audience needs to know where those shoes are taking them. If all you're going to do is sit in place and not go anywhere, to not know what to do next, then why the fuck are we all supposed to be protesting in the first place?
They (Occupy) refused to become overtly and actively political and translate that desire to change the status quo into determined, sustained and transformative action. By not changing the way the game is played and the players of the game, they were setting themselves up for failure. You can't just throw paint up against a wall and hope that everyone can understand what it means. You have to tell them what you're trying to say.
The real purpose of art is to get people to understand what their role is in the greater universe. To know that one has individual worth. That individuals can chose to work together for a common goal that betters themselves and the world around them. Art is supposed to be the basis of meaning, it is the path and the destination.
If you don't know where you're going, then why the hell are you going there?
By the way, I'm so very happy to hear that your daughter is an artist. I think that the artist is most important person in humanity. All artistic expression is the meaning of who we all are and what we're meant to be. Your daughter, as an artist, has a sacred role in the expression of humanity.
= new reply since forum marked as read
!