Ladies and Gentlemen, I feel that you haven’t had the chance to get to know me very well. I’m looking to change that. So I’m going to try something a little different this week, I’m going to start sharing my opinions with you. This also helps show that I’m a human and not just a computer! I’ll start with some of the topics previously covered by our hosts of Divided By Zero.
I will start with my absolute favorite topic: Art! So forgive me if I get a little carried away.
Art is my religion. Art is my addiction.
I don’t have a favorite kind of art. I’m pretty much a Jack of All Trades artist so I have a huge appreciation for each kind of art. I don’t think of myself as a master of any kind of art. Just so you know that I’m not an amateur, I would like you to know that I have been practicing and trying my hand at various types of art for over 10 years. Through middle and high school I participated in band (both concert and marching), I performed on clarinet, trombone, xylophone and percussion, and taught myself to play guitar and keyboard/ piano. I participated in theatre (speaking roles as well as singing and dancing) for 5 years, and received modeling training as well as paid acting work after high school through an agency including work as an extra in the film Real Steel. I have about 3-4 years of dance training to include hip-hop, jazz, tap, and salsa. I also have a wide variety of other art training to list: Graphic Design/ Marketing, college level Life Drawing, pottery/ clay sculpting, Art History, Fashion History, Watercolor/ Acrylic/ Oil Painting, 3D Art Design, knitting/ crocheting and 1 year of college level Fashion Design, 2 years of Costume Design & about 3-4 years of Sewing. I have yet to try my hand at Photography or Metal work, but I’m anxious for the opportunity. Today I continue to practice a majority of these skills. Like I said, Jack of all Trades, Master of None, but art is my passion. Yeah, I think I have enough training under my belt to admit that I kinda know what I’m talking about. I hope you agree.
"To be an artist, there has to be something psychologically wrong with you" So here are my opinions: Enjoy
I do tend to love sexual art, and by that I mean art where it’s secretly sexual in some way. Not the orgy art where everybody is naked or banging Gods or Demons. For example, Georgia O’Keeffe, sure her paintings are of flowers and they are appealing to look at, but what I love is that she related an Iris to a vagina! I don’t really know why I find that so fascinating. It probably has something to do with loopholes and rebelling. It’s kind of like, “HaHa! I got you to look into a vagina without you realizing it!" Now don't be mistaken, I have nothing against nudity in art. It's not something I encourage, but I absolutely do not disapprove. My reasoning is that I personally want all art to be viewable by everybody. However, I know that sometimes in order to portray the emotion correctly in your eyes, you might need to cross a few lines. I do not look down upon that at all! The same concept goes for the reverse: When I see a child looking at Georgia O'Keefe's Iris, my first instinct is basically to cover the child's eyes! But then I remember the ignorance. The human body is fascinating! We would be stupid to not use it in art.
I also love the surreal art such as Salvador Dali and Rene Magritte. I love surrealism for two reasons, the first being because it is a piece of an individual’s imagination in an image. The power to create an image from your imagination is limitless, powerful, untouchable and extremely unique. It is a talent in itself. To have such an imagination is a gift, but to have the ability to comprehend it enough and be able to show it to others in some way is a true talent. The second reason I love surrealism is because I feel that it always shows an individual’s view of something. I don’t think that an image is created just because it will appear appealing, I don’t think that is where the great ideas of a Surrealist come from. I feel, and hope, that people create a surrealist image because they have a view of something in their life as in some way unreal, whether it is a person, an object, or even the world. (I absolutely LOVE seeing a glimpse of our world or another world from someone else’s eyes.) Surrealism started as a way to dig into the subconscious. That is how it was created, so I hope that has and will continue to stay that way.
I have a certain expectation for art. Sure I look at technique and the message that each piece is portraying, but those things are only so important, but that is not what I want from a piece of art. From a strictly-viewer point of view, I want a piece to make me FEEL more than anything. It doesn’t have to be shock-value, or sexual, or any specific emotion. As long as an emotion is triggered by a piece of work, I am completely satisfied. From a creator's point of view, I think that every artist should use art as a form of expression and as an outlet. If self-expression is not the objective, then what the hell is? In my opinion, when self-expression is not involved in the creative process, that is when you end up with "motel art". But anyways, that is my expectation not only artwork, but ALL forms of art from movies to poetry to dance and music. That is how I measure the quality. Of course I understand that this form of measurement is flawed because this system varies per person, but I am perfectly ok with that. EVERY detail of art is strictly opinion anyways. The day that changes will be excruciating and infuriating for me because I already know that I will disagree with it.
I don’t know exactly how I would define art. I believe that as long as a piece is expressive of a message or emotion, then it can be viewed as a work of art in one way or another. And I never take it upon myself to say if an art piece is “good” or “bad” art. The only way I would feel comfortable with that is if I know that the creator is taking advantage of art in some way. I do not approve of people doing things simply to test the boundaries of art. The terms “good” and “bad” are never really acceptable when describing an art piece because a lot of different variables come into play when determining the quality of the work and each variable can only matter so much. For example, Picasso’s technique was terrible! Van Gogh’s subjects were plain! But with both artists there was something done so extremely well that some of the low quality things were just completely overlooked. I hope that makes sense. I don’t really know how else to word it. For example, I am personally terrible at drawing when it comes to drawing something realistic. But I can use a terrible drawing of mine, use it as a guideline, paint over it, and the outcome will be fantastic, in my opinion. It all depends on the artist’s style and capabilities.
I agree that art is almost becoming an isolated society. Once a piece becomes popular enough, (normally after the artist dies) it becomes untouchable, even pieces that are meant to be interacted with. That’s not how it's supposed to be... The amount of recognition an art piece receives does not change it in any way. The message and purpose should remain the same regardless. I wish the government would just keep their gross, greedy, sausage fingers off of art and religion.
Well that’s all I can think of for now. If you disagree, have any questions or want to read more on my views, LET ME KNOW! I’m sure I could arrange something.
For requests, advice, questions, ideas, or bullshit, email me at LadyEnvy@DividedByZeroPodcast.com
If it's funny, it might get a mention on the podcast! Or I might construct an entire post around it!