I have heard people say that by hindering the impulse to create with the practice of the craft we lose the raw BANG of the idea. “The idea is red, paint RED!”
This is expression yes, but, then where is the craft? It’s in the artist’s statement right?
Here is me. I have always considered myself a whimsical artist. Never taking myself too seriously, looking for the impulse of creativity from an innocent, unjaded perspective. Simple, fanciful, with a mix of “high” surrealist art. I like my work to make me smile when I’m done. Then I know I’m done, and it works. We all create for different reasons- mine are simple it makes me feel good.
Still…. I’m trying to understand.
Simply putting a color on a canvas and calling it art is complicated to say the least.
The thought of red being the only push to create has never seemd very….. creative to me personally. Red exists. That’s it. To say you created something because you used RED does not warrant artistic merit because, red by itself is just a color.
Does red have some tangible purpose in the composition?
If so then a canvas covered in red works right?
Bah! You say!
I AGREE and I DISAGREE!
Time has to tell.
This is a new concept in the history of art. Looking at a timeline, an idea like this is so recent, that the artists who first had the concept are barely a generation away.
My question to the “post impressionist” is, what happens to the giant red canvas after it becomes an artifact? What happens after the artist is removed by history and only the painting remains? What happens when the name plate is lost, the catalog number burns in a fire, the records at the gallery where stolen, the painting itself was stolen?
What if there is no connection to the BANG that created it?
Is it just a big red square?