Aesthetics/01
See also:  [Philosophical Concepts]
       
YAAS
(Yet Another Artist's Statement)

It always strikes me as ironic that as artists, we feel compelled 
to use words to write about art. So, what then are the arts "for"?

First and afore-foot, art is not decoration. There are countless
catalogs of "off the shelf" art, that bring us pleasing little
vinettes of fluffy bunnies, picturesque cottages, resplendent
sun-sets, sea-coasts, or woodland-creatures. There stand already
in place vast, mega-lithic corporartions whose sole motivating
purpose is profit, and the means by which they bring this to
realisation is: Entertainment. Add to this cheaply reproduced
and propagated decorative items, pleasing sights and sounds,
and we have the modern self-satisfied, bourgeios world. Sounds
bore-ing, right? Read on!

How it is

There are no end of "art schools" who will gladly take your money 
(or your father in law's, your daughter's, or Aunt Frisbee's)
and in return will show you how to apply paint to a canvas,
the proper use of glitter, and if you're *really* lucky may 
even venture out into the wild area of "collage" or "abstract"
painting. For the most part, however (and this is the sad thing
about the whole horrifying mess), most art is representational,
ever attempting to be photographic. Artists plunk down their not
in-consdierable change (usually in the range of $200 for 2 months'
worth of Sundays) and in return are taught exactly what art is not.

They are taught to buy the standard set of "supplies". Inevitably,
these include the two reds, the two yellows (not forgetting either
flesh-tone or yellow ochre), the two blues, titanium white, ivory
black -- and on a wild day even a tube of permanent green, one
of the oranges and purple. They are taught to ask for the various
brushes by name and what each brush is used for. And they are
given this same mediocre instruction the world over -- as if these
things were as much a property of the space-time continuum as
gravity, quantum mechanics, and rice pudding.

Then begins the liturgy of "artists" dragged out, as if some tired
old performance of the "Highlights of Hamlet". First of course,
there is all of the "ancient stuff", usually starting with the
Classical Greek period, stopping briefly off (and out of temporal
sequence) at King Tut's for a quick bit of the old gold and black.
And then off to the Coliseum showing it in all of its skeletal 
glory, as if the Roman empire had nothing to offer the modern 
world other than sort of decaying historical reminder of "the 
glory that once was". If the student is lucky (or un-lucky in
this case), they are shown some African tribal masks, a few trinkets
of modern "crafts" as if to suggest that all Africa had to offer
were cerimonial masks that can safely be tucked away on a dusty
mental shelf labeled "mardi graas, and other assorted entertainments".
Rarely are any of the works of the Benin region show; the craft
of "those" African artworks are all too disturbingly inspired
and worked to the extent that they begin to "challenge" those 
of Classical Greece; and of course, the Kingdom of Kush is
never mentioned - *ever*.

Then a quick look at a few flying buttresses, and it's on to the
renaissance which consisted entirely (and precisely) of The List.

[ ] Last Supper, davinci
[ ] Mona Lisa, davinci
[ ] Cisteen Chappel, michelangelo
[ ] The odd carvagio, titan, and what not
[ ] several hundred, odd madonna & child, etc.

And then after a very brief stop in modern realism, the tour 
ends with the three van gogh's and the expressionists. And on 
a really wild day, a picaso-dali-polock is thrown in to show
what "modern" art looks like.

And thus, you get your little bo-peep diploma and then repeat the
entire sordid mess all over again. 

So. Is it *any* wonder, why contemporary artists can't get their
stuff shown, let alone "sold". Inevitably, if you do find someone
whose taste runs to the "slightly abstract" (usually something
colorful, simply done, with not too many brush strokes, and *please*,
no drips of paint!) -- then, they ask if you could do something 
for them for say $200?  Not that they actually would like to
buy anything that you have already done, but that they would
be willing to part with $200 (you'd think it was $200,000 the
way they say it) for something "unique"; ie, something that they
could hang on the wall in the hallway, so that they could (when
asked) say, "Oh, yes. I have an artist that paints those for me."

And thus, we come to the "now" of what art is supposed to be.

(well that's a start anyway. please excuse the tersness of the
writing, and i appologize for the generally negative nature
of the work, but i can only say that i was rather in a lot of
pain, and besides i come from a broken family, and then of 
course my cat died, and i have a really high fever)

How it ought to be