Art and the Occasional Randomness From the Mind of a Crazed Artist
Right. So I try not to get political here…That’s what my Twitter account is for! But I can’t not write about this.
When a woman dressed in a way you don’t approve of gets raped and you say, or even think, “Well she asked for it,” you are excusing the rapist. You are apologizing on the rapists’ behalf.
It’s not a figure of speech. It’s slut-shaming, it’s victim-blaming, and it’s rape apology.
So let’s get straight to the point. Nudity. Nakedness. Nekkid. However you want to say it, people get strange when the clothes come off. I was reading an issue of The Artist’s Magazine a couple years ago (a pretty terrible magazine by the way, I wouldn’t recommend wasting your money on it…explanation to follow in an article some time in the near future), and someone had written into the magazine that they thought nudity had no place in art and that she (I think it was a she) would do with the previous issue what she did with all the other issues in her collection that had artwork featuring nude models…paint clothing over the freaking models! So she could pass her collection down to her grandchildren someday.
Well. Allow me to get into how many different kinds of wrong that is.
Yeah, I know, I was a total slug about writing last week. Out of necessity, I’d gone off of caffeine, and let me tell you. It wasn’t pretty. I’m definitely felt the deep void in my life a Vanilla Coke fills. And for my negligence, I get to write while my back feels as though I’ve been stabbed with a rather large knife. It’s good though – it fuels my rage!
Because today is all about outrage. My apologies, but this isn’t art related outrage. This is gender and state fair outrage.
For those of you that don’t know, I live near Syracuse, NY, USA. It’s a city best known for once having salt, having one of the most polluted lakes in the country (and up there on the world’s list if I’m not mistaken), the 2003 NCCA college basketball championship, Charles Dickens falling into the Erie Canal (which according to local legend, fueled his hatred for the city), and “The Great New York State Fair”.
It’s this last one that has got my panties in a bunch. See, normally I hate the fair because it’s crowded, hot, overpriced, and they make up ludicrous rules every year that are usually repealed by the next. But this year I hate the fair for a whole new reason.
“If I’m not pissing off at least one person a day, I’m not doing my job right.”
That’s a quote from my father-in-law. Apparently it’s highly applicable here, because according to that logic I was doing my job very well last week. From different sources (who have specifically requested not to be named or quoted, so it will all remain very vague here, sorry) I got a lot of flak about my declaration that talent doesn’t exist. It was even insinuated that I don’t know what I’m talking about because of my age…which made me giggle because my opinion about talent is one shared by many people I know, some of whom are well into their 50′s and one memorable 80-something-year-old who has spent his life immersed in the arts (literally…he was put into art school at a very young age; he has like 80+ years learning, working, and teaching art). You know you’re pissing people off when the personal attacks come flying.
As a side note, it’s amazing how angry some people get when you tell them you think they’re wrong. What happened to intelligent debate? Suddenly it’s rude or vulgar to disagree with someone? Really? Ugh, I blame public schools…they mass produce perfectly obedient sheep. Note to self, start turning tricks so the kids came go to private school.
Annnyway. Let’s start addressing issues people had with the last article. First, because I was accused of not defining myself properly, so here’s a definition (actually, there will be several). Dictionary.com, as based on the Unabridged Random House Dictionary, defines talent as:
A special natural ability or aptitude
A capacity for achievement or success; ability
A talented person
A group of persons with special ability
Professional actors collectively, especially star performers
A power of mind or body considered as given to a person for use and improvement: so called from the parable in Matthew 25:14-30
Any of various ancient units of weight, as a unit of Palestine and Syria equal to 3000 shekels, or a unit of Greece equal to 6000 drachmas
Any of various ancient Hebrew or Attic monetary units equal in value to that of a talent weight of gold, silver, or other metal
Inclination or disposition (which they note as an obsolete definition!!!)
I think we can all agree to throw out 7 and 8, since this isn’t a history lesson. We won’t touch 6 with a 10-foot pole because I’ve got people pissed off enough without bringing religion into the fray. Since we’re talking about talent the concept and not the person, we can kick 3, 4, and 5 to the curb. 2 is a strange definition that you just don’t hear in common usage, so let’s focus on 1 and 9, starting with 1.
“A special natural ability or aptitude.” Using the first definition of natural as “existing in or formed by nature” and the first definition of ability as “power or capacity to do or act physically, mentally, legally, morally, financially,” than we can safely say that talent is, as defined and used by common English, an ability one is born with. This very definition says that if someone is talented, they are BORN with a specific skill. This is something that struck me, because people are insisting talent exists, even after they say that no one comes out of their mama’s belly drawing amazingly. Um, that’s the definition of talent people. Check a dictionary or the links above it you don’t believe me.
Another argument I had thrown at me was that someone knew someone who had no training and could drawing or paint amazingly well. The first definition of training is “the education, instruction, or discipline of a person or thing that is being trained.” The word discipline (1: “training to act in accordance with rules; drill – 2: activity, exercise, or a regimen that develops or improves a skill”) is key here, because it means that training does not, by any stretch of the imagination, have to be formal. If someone is drawing or painting a lot, they’re training themselves. And self-training is a very recognized phenomena. People who train themselves in any given activity and typically referred to as hobbyists (hobby: “an activity or interest pursued for pleasure or relaxation and not as a main occupation”) or amateurs (1: “a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons”). In the art world we call them Outsider Artists.
But the main issue seemed to be with the word “work” (don’t worry, I’ll get back to definition 9 of talent). People seemed to see work as a negative thing, to which I say: Keep your prejudices out of my objective debate (yeah I know I just opened myself up to attacks about my objectivity…but I don’t care to go off on a tangent [ha!] right now). Let’s review the definition of work:
1.) exertion or effort directed to produce or accomplish something; labor; toil
2.) something on which exertion or labor is expended; a task or undertaking
3.) productive or operative activity
4.) employment, as in some form of industry, especially as a means of earning one’s livelihood
5.) one’s place of employment
6.) materials, things, etc., on which one is working or is to work
7.) the result of exertion, labor, or activity
8.) a product of exertion, labor, or activity
9.) an engineering structure, as a building or bridge
10.) a building, wall, trench, or the like, constructed or made as a means of fortification
Since we’re talking about art, I think we can all agree to drop definitions 9 and 10. We can dump 5 because clearly art can’t be a place, and 6 because art supplies aren’t generally considered art in and of themselves. That leaves definitions 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8, all of which are applicable to what art is.
Art is exertion (“vigorous action or effort”) directed to produce or accomplish something.
Art is something on which exertion or labor (“productive activity”) is expended.
Art is a productive (“having the power of producing; generative; creative” [italic mine]) activity.
Art is (for many) a form of employment.
Art is the result (“something that happens as a consequence; outcome”) and product (“a thing produced by labor”) of exertion!
No one sits around all day and pieces of art magically appear around them. They have to do (“to perform”) something to produce art. No one is born, has a pencil thrust into their hands, and dishes out a Da Vinci. They have to draw and draw and draw and draw and draw and draw and draw and draw and draw and draw and draw and draw and draw and draw … … …
You get my point. Art is work, and talent is a myth. Which I think bring us back to definition 9 of talent, “inclination or disposition.” The dictionary notes this as an obsolete (“1: no longer in general use; fallen into disuse – 2: of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date”) definition. Were this still an active definition of talent, I wouldn’t have a problem with it being used that way, because I do agree that people can have inclinations or dispositions to certain things, depending on how their brain is wired. And from my understanding of how the brain works (I fully admit I’m no expert, but I’ve studied learning and brain development, and read the neuroscience journal articles my husband collects, so I feel I have a decent understanding), you can rewire your brain. It gets harder the older you get, and it takes a hell of a lot of exertion or effort directed to produce accomplish (“work”) it, but you can do it.
But, as far as the English-speaking world is concerned, it is no longer a definition of talent. So talent doesn’t exist.
And personally, I find the idea of talent insulting. Calling art work gives a nod to all the energy I’ve put into not just that piece, but to learning the skills and practicing my tail off. Calling art work acknowledges all my experimentation, my trial and error. It takes into account all my late nights, early mornings, and time I spent on art instead of with my kids. Talent dismisses all that by referring to it as something I was born with that comes easily.
The fact of the matter is, art is hard (“3: difficult to do or accomplish; fatiguing; troublesome” the first two definitions deal with density of something). That’s why not everyone does it – or at least why not everyone does it seriously (serious, “of, showing, or characterized by deep thought”).
So there was this article in the Daily Mail the other day about this guy who couldn’t draw stick figures that had a stroke, had brain surgery, and woke up a “talented” artist who could rival Michaelangelo (yes they actually said that). He has since gone to art school, received a fine arts degree, and is planning to open a gallery. Keeping in mind that the Daily Mail is hardly a reliable source and the story is most likely full of shit, let me count the ways how that is offensive to real artists.
Are people really still perpetuating the myth of talent? Aren’t we over this fallacy yet? People need to acknowledge “talent” for what it is: An excuse to not try. People decided they’re not talented at something – art, music, science, sports, whatever – and they stop trying. That’s not to say that people aren’t wired differently to be predisposed to certain areas. For example, my brain isn’t wired for high level math. I busted my butt in high school, and after barely passing Trigonometry, I even gave Pre-Calculus a try, after a certain point, I can’t seem to keep it straight no matter how hard I try. But re-read that sentence…I tried. And I tried hard (well, as hard as your average suburban high school student does), but it stopped clicking. It would’ve been too easy for me to wipe my hands, declare that I had no talent for math, and be done with it.
Which seems to be the attitudes of most people when it comes to art; either you’re talented or you’re not. If you are, there’s the image of the artist alone in their studio, shut off from the rest of the world, wrestling with their inner demons (and possibly mental illness) and searching for inspiration. If you’re not, then you never will be and that’s that.
The reality is, talent is a cop out. Artists work and they work hard. Like any other skill or craft, art takes a lot of time and practice. There are times (and I’m sure there are those out there that would give me grief for this) I find creating art just as hard as being a mother. My kids are loud, unruly, and they don’t like to listen. My art works often tend to be the same. Any artist who’s ever struggled dozens or hundreds of hours with a piece will agree with me here.
I think it’s because of this talent myth that art isn’t nearly as respected as it ought to be in many societies. I mean if it’s talent, it’s easy, right? And easy things, or things perceived as easy, aren’t typically treated with respect. Clearly art isn’t, or it would constantly be getting cut from public schools’ budgets. I have a simple proposal to increase the societal view of art’s respectability: Mandatory studio classes for all college students, period. It would take a generation or two, and like anything not everyone would be swayed, but if colleges required every student, regardless of major, to take a studio class (NOT just an art history class – art history is important, don’t get me wrong, but it doesn’t really convey the difficulty of creating art like a studio class does), I think we would see a change of societal opinion. Art would become respected and this notion of “talent” would start to fade away. And “talent” disappearing from our world can only be a good thing. It means people would actually start working again.