“What art hangs on God’s refrigerator door?” – p. 5 It Was Good
As a child I was always drawing, always coloring. I never expected to become an artist, it was always just something I did. It was fun. I don’t know what about it was so satisfying then, to be able to say to my parents, “Look! I didn’t go outside the lines!” with pride. I’m pretty sure my dad still has an art piece I did in kindergarten, hanging in my parents room, framed and everything. I can look at it and think, “It’s not bad, especially for that age. But I could do much better now.” And I definitely could. But does that mean that the art is ‘bad’ art? If not, is it ‘good’ art? I can’t exactly show you the piece (as I don’t have a digital copy handy), but it really comes down to opinion.
In the book It was Good: Making Art to the Glory of God there is a rather large quote that I wish to focus on. Found on pages 13 and 14, it says,
“Perhaps divine wisdom also invented the humbling contingency that everyone can have opinions about art, regardless of their own ability or training, although some artists bearing the scars of knee jerk responses attribute this condition to the other side. Seriously, though – who among us would attempt to levy medical diagnoses, asses astrophysical formulas, or propose responsible investment strategies on our brothers and sisters without training or preparation? Because art can convey profound or simple truths to nonthinkers and great intellects with potency (or a dismal lack thereof), are poses a huge target to the very audience it hopes to engage. Its very existence simultaneously poses a cultural liability, and a magnificent viability.”
Kind of a hefty quote, I know. But it is something I have had many discussions about in this last year and a half of my schooling, as I prepare to delve into the ‘real’ world. It comes down to this: Everyone has an opinion on art, but not everyone is trained in it. You could replace ‘art’ with almost anything, really. I have an opinion on what type of medical care I receive, but I have no training. Some friends have very strong opinions on how the government should be run, but no one takes them seriously when they say something about it… because they have no training and have done no research (I’m sure that you can think of a couple people from your life who are like this). But for some reason, when it comes to art… it doesn’t seem to matter if you are trained in it. The opinions of the trained and nontrained seem to hold a similar weight.
Part of it comes down to the fact that in our post-modern society (or is post-post modern now?), we have accepted that there is no one ‘Truth’, no right way to do things, especially when it comes to art. As artists and writers and other creatives challenged the academy and challenged the way things were, people began to ask “What is art?”
Fountain, by Duchamp (1917). Dada. This infamous artwork was created to challenge the idea of what is art, but without the story and reasoning behind it, it loses its meaning to the untrained person.
The infamous Fountain (1917) was entered into a show by Duchamp. But it was rejected by the show, despite the rules stating that any art would accepted as long as a fee was paid. Personally, I believe that Duchamp intentionally was challenging the Art Academy’s standard of art using drastic (but effective) measures. However, without knowing the story and the reason why it was created, this artwork becomes nothing more than an upside down urinal with a signature on it.
Sadly, that is exactly what most of the world sees, as they are ignorant of the story, and it applies to the majority of the contemporary art being created today.
As an emerging and contemporary artist, it is a struggle to find relevancy in my own art. Sometimes I am creating because I need to. Other times my art is inspired by ideas and concepts. But, in my experience, the one that is least expected reason to create is simply to explore. The finest example I have is of a drawing I did of a robot, and my mother’s reaction to it.
The initial illustration I created later was used as the inspiration for a final project in a Maya class I took in 2013. It is published in the GFU art magazine “Hagios”, 2014 edition.
To understand a bit of background, my mother is Psychology professor at George Fox University, and before she was teaching she held her clinical practice for 15 years working primarily with teenage girls. And at the time of my robotic illustration, both she and I were aware that I was self-conscious about my skinny body and the fact that I was underweight. My illustration was of a robot that had been broken down, was in a repair shop, but was only of the essential parts. There was no added mass to it, and when my mom first saw my drawing, she freaked out. What she saw was a broken figure, made of skin and bones, and her first thought was “Is this how my little girl sees herself?!” (or something along those lines…) But if my body issues had been apart of that illustration, it was not intended on my part. My goal was to explore the idea of drawing metal, electricity, and have fun with lighting. And since my favorite subject to draw are people, I modeled the robot after a female human. All the drawing meant to me was a fun subject – I had fun with lighting, with experimenting with layout, and it was pure fun. But through my mother’s training, it was something entirely different and darker… which I laugh at her about to this day.
Despite the differences in our views on my art, my experience with my mother’s reaction rang true. I understand where her opinion was coming from, based on what she knew about me. The truth that I learned, however, is that everyone assigns meaning to what they see, based on their own experiences and their own world view. Humans will always make judgements on what is ‘good’ art and what is ‘bad’ art. As a trained artist, I can recognize when something technically good or bad, but those terms are only relative to my own experience. When I evaluate art, I have 3 different ways I evaluate by:
1) On the technique – How did the process evolve? Is the art technically sound? Were formal academy art rules (such as the principles and elements of art) used, and how so? If they weren’t, how much of that is intentional? How does the technique reinforce the final product?
2) On the concept – What is the message, if there is one? What are the core ideas in the art?
3) On the goal – Why was it created? What was the reason, the motivation, for the art? The intention?
Most of my evaluation of art comes down to the 3rd one. I appreciate art that holds meaning, is created to bring awareness, and connects communities. I hope to create technically sound art, but the work I am most proud of are the pieces that inspire questions, conversations and connection between strangers. It is my goal that my art connects people.
At the beginning of this blog there is a picture, captioned with the question, “What would God put on his refrigerator door?” My first thought upon coming across that question was that he would put anything and everything that was created by his creations. He would want to show it (and us) off, because he loves us and loves everything about us, even if it is not technically and conceptually sound or with created with the purest of goals in mind.
I’ll leave you with a final question: What art do you hang on your fridge?
“Art asks questions, it is provocative. It lets people come up with their own answers.” – Chris Skaggs
Resources:
It Was Good: Making Art to the Glory of God (book)
Wikipedia
Interview with Chris Skaggs
erinkaysblog 