And that's what I love about them. They are visually strong! I think you can do both sides anyway. I was looking at some of your work tonight that I thought was similar to this. I can't find them now, but when you work lightly, on a white background, the work has a similar feel for me.
you're right and i should stop worrying about how i do it (how non planned they are) and the fact that i can never make the same thing (feel, world) twice, because i forgot how i did it or i can't put myself in exactly the same state of mind again.
i should forgive myself the fact that hey are accidental and start believe that, in fact, they're not
I understand and experience both your worries. I look at this image, it seems like it is not mine. It was made in 5 minutes maybe and means nothing to me. I don't really like it. Completely spontaneous - if its art, its hollow art. That's what goes through my head every now and again anyway. I think it has to do with the spontaneity and digitization of the process. What are we actually doing when making these? What are we controlling/manipulating. It brings about the worries you speak of.
you know, spontaneity as i see it is not a bad thing. too much thinking and analyzing can be harmful, can stand in the way of feelings. but it's a different approach i agree. i was never attracted to those works of art very elaborated, where you can see the artist put a lot of work and planing into it, and it can be visually very pleasant and strong. but here i'm talking maybe of my personal sensibility.
also about controlling. it is very important for a photographer and painter. not so important for an artist. if you keep the word artist as vague as it should be.
still more control, more thinking, more knowing where we're getting, must be thrilling once there. i'd like to experience it. but maybe i'll miss the surprise.
maybe the question i ask myself the most often is : am i a "real" artist? i smile at myself, ironic, sarcastic. but then i ask it again and again.
"you know, spontaneity as i see it is not a bad thing. too much thinking and analyzing can be harmful, can stand in the way of feelings. but it's a different approach i agree. i was never attracted to those works of art very elaborated, where you can see the artist put a lot of work and planing into it, and it can be visually very pleasant and strong."
I feel the same way about this. Working from instinct allows for so much more than working with concepts and thoughts. The doubts that I expressed before are a product of working this way though. That includes the 'am I a "real" artist' question. What am I really doing with this work? What am I creating? How am I creating it? Why am I creating it? When we have no answers to these question it makes us question the very nature of what we do. When I am creating my digital works, I enjoy what I do and I don't question the artistic integrity of the process or end result. When I am not creating I am always questions their substance? No artist at any exhibition has ever written 'I made these because it felt right'. The art world demands meaning and if the work you have done is without then it is classified into groups. This is absurdism, therefore it brings about existentialist ideology... this is abstract expressionism, therefore it highlights man's inability to love etc etc. There appears to be no escape from this. My entire course is concept based. In its loosest form, we are given a theme/concept and told to explore it. The limitation allows for my ideas to become more refined and specific consequently limiting the work I can do. Aside from this, I don't know what to say. The concept based mentality in the outside world makes me question my artistic integrity. Is art only about aesthetics and emotions? I don't know. It doesn't appear to be. That being said however, I have never really seen art which has made any social impact.
It is a good question to ask every now and again though. 'Am I a real artist?' I wish my classmates would ask themselves. Its a way of getting there. I think it is attainable. We just have to stop creating to arrive.
i read this with much interest, the point of view of an art "professional" even if student. i would say specially a student, as you are given on a daily basis theories and examples and asked to work/meditate or interpret it and then try to translate it into something creative of your own. and more things i would not even begin to guess. i'm sure i would have failed in art school can anything be more different of my own experience of art? i only had a very rigorous scientific formation for my whole life, started art very very late and then worked only by instinct. even when i try to go from concept, it turns out only emotional. and i ask myself, is it art, or is it just personal expression that happens to enjoyable to look at? i know people react, they told me so many times. but again is this this a definition? they used to say so, but now it seems not enough. there always have to be metaphysical, philosophical, social or political basis. or at least a coherent artistic process so, from time to time, frequently, i pass by periods of doubt followed by a total loss of inspiration. how wouldn't i?
i can't really enter a real debate with you about this, i feel my opinion is very narrow and based on my limited experience. should i stop? maybe. but i will not, i need it