What Is Art To You?

Everyone has their own version of Art.

Some people believe Picasso to be a genius, others find their children can draw just as well as he.

He did say it took him his whole life to draw like a child, after all.

But what is art to you? Personally?

Is art visceral or intellectual? Certainly it can be both.

Is art tactile or abstract? Again, it is certainly both.

Art is constantly evolving and yet staying the same.

My views on art have varied wildly over the last couple years, starting with being essentially nonexistent. Two years ago, to me, art merely existed. I didn't understand it because I never thought to try. Art was an enigma because I kept it in the dark. I think everybody does this, to some extent, saying to themselves that they just don't get art. But what's their to get?

Sure, when an artist creates something, they may have a very specific idea of what that art means and what they want you to feel. But what if you look at that art and see something different.

Take The Swing, for example.

There's a few things going on, but most people would not likely draw the same conclusion. Nor would I expect them to feel the same way about this painting. In the middle you have a lady swinging. She stands out, wearing pink, from the otherwise dismal colored painting. How does this make you feel? Look at the man pulling her from the back; he is smiling. Why? Should he be? Who is he? What about the man in front of he in the bushes. She is clearly looking at him and her cheeks are flushed. And she's kicking up her leg (losing her shoe) to let the man below her look up her dress. Considering all the clothing she's wearing, this is probably a very naughty thing to do during a time when, I imagine, modesty is best. Also, consider that they are, essentially, in public. Now how does this painting make you feel?

At first, this painting feels kind of happy. Sure, the painting is mostly dark, but the light casting through the shadows onto the woman adds a certain brightness to the painting; almost like there is something to look forward to.

But really this painting is a giant fuck you.

The painting was commissioned by a man for his mistress. He's the one on the ground up front; she's the one on the swing. Her husband is in the shadows (literally and figuratively) unaware of this affair. Is he pulling her back or Is he pushing her into it?

Art has a way of taking what you think you know and flipping it upside-down.

Now That That's Out Of The Way...

Now my personal journey through art hasn't focused so much on the minutiae of looking at and understanding art. My journey, short as it may be, has focused more on the process. I've long been intrigued by process more than meaning with art.

In particular, I've become more interested in more traditional, process-oriented arts. I feel like the process of creating and binding a book by hand is more rewarding than drawing a picture. That is not to say that drawing isn't rewarding, I just find that personally, for me, the tactility of an art encourages me to continue it.

I'm really intrigued by letterpress right now. I want to learn it. The process from beginning to end blows my mind. Letterpress seems like the perfect blend of old-school art form and new digital technology culminating in an amazing product that itself, too, is tactile.



I think that's all for now.

On Swearing An Oath On A Bible

I was reading this article, which is basically about Newt Gingrich's response to President Obama no longer defending the Defense Of Marriage Act. For those of you who do not know, the Defense Of Marriage Act is a law enacted during Bush's presidency defining marriage federally as between a man and a woman. This is important for many reasons, which are neither here nor there, but basically it boils down to this. If you live in a state where gay marriage is legal, like Connecticut, you have the same spousal benefits as anyone else. In Connecticut. When it comes to those rights federally, you do not have them. You can't file taxes as a married couple, for instance. There are implications with estate taxes, too. While not what this post is about, it got me thinking.

At the end of the article there is this quote:

He is breaking his word to the American people. He swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody. The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act.

This isn't the obvious, normal argument over swearing on a Bible and separation of church and state. I don't really know how I feel about all that, and I don't think it really matters much in the scheme of things. What got me thinking is, what about atheists?

I know, we are never going to elect an atheist anytime soon here. They poll worse than gays and Muslims for public office. And while I have no problem with either gays or Muslims, a lot of Americans do. This is a very important point to consider. In the entire history of the Congress, only six have been openly gay--one woman, five men. Not one of those six comes courtesy of the Senate.

So while gay rights have come some ways, there's still a way to go in terms of electing them to high, public office, and to elect a gay president is, I think, at least a decade away.

Then there are Muslims. Only two have ever served in Congress, both converts, which is, again, important. When most Americans think of Islam, they think of September 11. They think of terrorists with beards, dark skin, and automatic weapons. They don't think of this:

Then there's atheists. Atheists receive a lot of scorn, which I really don't understand. Religious people seem to get bent out of shape over others' beliefs (in this case, non-beliefs). Maybe it's because I'm not overtly religious, but I think if I was, it wouldn't bother me that someone else did not believe in my God. Being raised a Catholic and going to Catholic schools, I certainly never thought the ancient Egyptians or any other religious group which many deities were somehow heathens. Who was I to question someone else's beliefs? If I were a devout Christian, I wouldn't be so worried about other people's souls, I'd want to make sure mine was in tact first.

For the record, there is one atheist in Congress, which is surprising, until you consider that it's in California, at which point it's no longer that surprising.

So, if we could somehow, as a country, form around an atheist president, what would he or she swear upon? Certainly a Bible makes no sense. Perhaps they would just swear. Perhaps they would just promise, because, for an atheist, being held accountable by a God they believe not to exist is like asking a thirty year old to swear on Santa Clause or the Bogeyman. Where is the harm in breaking that promise?

In a more everyday sense, I wonder what atheists do in courtrooms and the like, where this sort of event occurs more often.