Saturday, July 06, 2019                                            7:46 AM

The True Nature of Art   (2019Jul06)

I’ve had a life-long struggle to understand the true nature of Art. In one way, I see art as an intuitive action being spurred by a sense of passion or grandeur. I’ve practiced ‘outsider’ or ‘neo-folk’ art all my life, with a few exceptions.

I see my quandary more clearly nowadays—native art and ‘artifice’ are as different as night and day. To grow beyond native impulse requires artifice—the grand painters and great composers of old were all accomplished in their craft. Their emotional manipulations were so effective that art, today, is an important investment—whether talking Disney copyrights, Prince’s catalog, or original Van Goghs.

I use the terms ‘artifice’ and ‘emotional manipulation’ because folk art is far more the candid expression of the maker’s feelings, through use of wood, paint, sound, etc.—whereas, serious artists recollect such impulses, whilst considering how to evince feeling from the audience, resonant with that experience or impulse.

Put simply, a folk artist is all heart, flailing at his opponent, while a pro is dancing about, considering where to place the next jab. One obsesses, the other succeeds.

Which calls to mind the category of ‘craft’—in craft, the maker’s love is for the process—the carver’s chair or the potter’s vase, while beautiful, are not works of pure art. Thus craftworks do not shout of love—they proclaim only the personality of the lover.

And I felt this limitation often—while drawing a picture or attempting a poem—that certain labors of love show the love—and some only show the labor.