making my living vs making my art

Man with the Cat (Henry Sturgis Drinker) (1898) by Cecilia Beaux Smithsonian American Art Museum [public domain photo]

---

I can be stunned by a Degas composition of the millinery shop every time I go to The Chicago Art institute; I can be equally as thrilled by Wayne Thiebaud's color usage; Or the statements made by many modern artists.  Each has their time, place and mood and context of origin. My reaction to the artifact may have little or nothing to do with the artists experience or intent.

Many people stand in front of the Millinery Shop, and each have their own reason for enjoying the view (or not!). I see color theory and composition that is utterly amazing. Others may see a tender moment. others may see a historic representation of hats! Who is to say which is "right". Would Degas care, or once he was done with his experiment/experience, was his need to create it satisfied.

Like everything else in life, there are many dimensions to that which we call art. There is the technical prowess of the draftsmanship, the virtuosity with which the media is manipulated, the visual representation of the subject matter, the commentary, the color theory, and so much more. Like with food, our enjoyment of and requirement for art will vary with which of these we choose to focus on or need at any given time, as well as our own personal history and knowledge..

Once again I am reminded of an anecdote [says the wizened old woman]. I have a friend who is the most knowledgeable person I know about art history. I came home from a visit to the Smithsonian Art Museums one time, and he asked me "What was you favorite painting there?" I replied "Man with the Cat, by Cecilia Beaux." My good buddy then went ballistic. He could not understand how, with the presence of Rembrant and Vermeer there, I could give that answer. My reasoning was he asked for my "favorite", which in my mind, deserves a gut-level emotional response. He did not ask me which I thought was the "technically best", or "compositionally perfect". And while Vermeer can bring me to tears, it is because I am blown away by virtuosity, not emotional response.

The Millinery Shop, 1885, Edgar Degas, The Art Institute of Chicago [public domain]

So, as I see it "art" is twofold. There is the artistic experience of making, and the art experience of viewing. The ratio or import of each will vary. The correlation between the artist's experience and the viewer's experience may be incidental or profound. As a graphic designer, there is a wealth of experience as you work to make both concept and marketing goal work while combining a multitude of design and color theories. The result is a very transient artifact, that will most often not be appreciated for its aesthetics - even though they are the reason it works or not! The experience of making the ad may be profound to the designer, but [conscientiously] inconsequential to the viewer. While I may choose five different fabrics to make into a sweater and spend a lot of time making sure the textures and weights work together, the buyer may love the comfort and the fact it matches their new jeans. That does nothing to lessen my experience during the creation.

Some of my favorite forms of art are folk art or naive art or kids art. Art that is made because the artist had to get it out.
Tomorrow I will talk a bit more about that.