Posterity vs. Practice or how Mr. olson really ticked us off.

By Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn (1606 - 1669) (Dutch) [Public domain]

When I was in art school I had an experience I think about often. Truth be told,  I had several - it was 1969+ after all- but this one was an art related one.

We had a life drawing class. For those non-artists out there, figure drawing is an almost sacrosanct activity. It is steeped in centuries of artists using the human form to learn all there is about structure and technique. It is filled with solemnity and seriousness with each student trying to portray both structure and chiaroscuro with perfection.

The professor that I had, preferred the short pose. Poses that last only minutes - sometimes seconds - and the aim is to capture the essence of the pose. Of course, we students grumbled because perfection is unobtainable in minutes. One day, he announced that we would have all class on one pose. This was unheard of, and we all knew this would be our day of perfection. We prepared our charcoals and stumps, readied our pencils and chose the "good" paper so the drawing would last for the ages.

Then, as we left class, Mr. Olson took our drawings and promptly torn them up and threw them away.

We were hurt, and furious, and very confused. He then sat us all back down and asked us a questions. "What do you remember about the experience of making that drawing? What did you learn or take away from the activity that will serve you tomorrow."

The truth was that most of us were so concerned about making "good art" that we had reverted back to things we already knew; our safety zones. We had not pushed ourselves. We were so concerned about the end artifact that we forgot to experience the activity. 

By Thomas Rowlandson (1756–1827) and Augustus Charles Pugin (1762–1832) (after) John Bluck (fl. 1791–1819), Joseph Constantine Stadler (fl. 1780–1812), Thomas Sutherland (1785–1838), J. Hill, and Harraden (aquatint engravers)[1] [Public domain

For me, that was a very meaningful experience. We often hear things like 'be in the moment' or 'learn from experience', etc. but this was more than that for me. It explained the difference between the personal experience of art and the public artifact of art. At times they coincide, but many times they are quite separate events. I may have a total 'artgasm' experience while creating something, but the final artifact may not move anyone else. One the other hand, an artifact may be created with a rote hand and is beloved by the masses.

This is why there is both a huge universe of that which we call art, and why art is undefinable. Is it the making or the made. Is it enough for it to be personal growth, or must it be communicative? Those answers probably differ as much as the art created by each artist. That is the wonderment of it all. That is the angst of it all. That is the core of it all.

For me (and I do mean "for me" - not "how it should be"), it is the experience. I have never made art with a conscience effort to change the world, or even one single mind. I have no want to be validated through gallery sales or fame. It is enough to feel the well up of the creative force and the visceral relief when it escapes from me. Whether it is then enjoyed by others is both a bonus and a wonderment, but never a necessity.

The above assertion may seem either contradictory, or a bit of downright hypocrisy, coming from someone who has made their living based on their creative endeavors for almost four decades, so tomorrow I will address that. Stay tuned!