Rick Rotante

Confusion

12/28/2011 10:42:07 AM

While in a gallery recently I found myself looking more at other people looking at the art on display and was more interested in their reactions to the artwork than the artwork itself. I am a people watcher. People are what interest me and people are what I use as subject matter to convey my message.

Some reactions seemed to be almost totally based on what people have been told or learned. These are-- programmed reactions. Other more direct and "pure" reactions ranged from awe to disgust.

Some viewers had a visceral reaction that may even be accompanied by a temporary or prolonged state of trance. Jaws dropped, bodies go limp and people are seen to sit or stand, not quite knowing what's happening. It would be too easy to credit these feeling to incompetent works alone. I’m not sure incompetent works in shows and galleries is not a misnomer.

There may be works that show the feelings of: ambiguity, complexity, pattern interruption, insult, ignorance, contradiction, poor taste, shock, beguiling illusion, surprise, incompleteness, and the propagation of riddle and mystery--but incompetence-- at least for me is not the factor. In truth, many good artists use these devices to make a point, not to obfuscate or confuse.

When a work of art isn’t clear, the issue of competence vs. incompetence may not be at issue. I personally see new works found today in museums; galleries in particular, as being deliberately confusing for the sake of spectacle, grandstanding (the artist didn’t have a clear vision or purpose.)

There is a plethora of confusing work in the market today and much can be attributed to incompetence with the painful result of beguiling a viewing public. This may be at the root of confusion with gallery goers in general.

Contrariwise, if a work of art is confusing, there is a tendency by the powers that be as well as the devotee of art, to see the work as greater than it actually is because it can’t be easily pigeonholed. The—device-- the artist used, succeeded too well.

The public has created a myth surrounding artists. Confusion or obfuscation on the part of the artist is almost expected. After all, he/she is an artist, right? Sadly, too much of today’s bad art is only attributed to incompetence and not to lack of insight and artistry. There is good reason for the public at large to be confused.

I am in favor of artist’s using devices to—incite--the viewer; cause that person the stop and consider what is being viewed. If you choose to make art that causes controversy you need to have the facility and ability to pull it off. If you want to create art that is just pleasing, you still need to have your ability and techniques at your disposal. The thing I stress for all artists is never stop learning, never think you’ve reached the pinnacle. Always seek to improve your technique. Improve your ability and sharpen your message.

Artists and Madness

12/12/2011 5:07:05 PM

Society has created a myth about the relationship between madness and creativity that glamorizes mental illness in artists and provides an alibi for destructive art and bad behavior; whereas sanity has become equated with boredom and conformity. In point of fact the sane artist can include their madness without being overwhelmed by it.
What is madness? When does one enter a state of madness? Is it when obsessions, compulsions, moods, or addictions take possession of your motivations, and you no longer decide what you do? Viewed that way, madness is a state that is to be avoided, a
state that is irrational in a highly undesirable way: it comes with lack of control, and thus with a lack of freedom. For an artist to function, clearly he needs to have control over faculties. And yet you might find it boring for an artist to be ‘rational’ or sane.
Excited and enthusiastic about something, you might insist that a certain kind of craziness leads to the best things in life: love, philosophy, art, science, and so on. We find fault with the instinct to draw a line between rationality and madness. Is not some kind of madness a powerful ingredient of a better life, as one might rationally pursue it?
Being a little crazy might just be good for artists. You can release inhibitions in this madness while still seemingly in control.
These questions bring to mind Plato’s views on madness. It would be naive to consider all madness bad, or to consider madness a remote phenomenon, absent from the lives of most artists. Madness is deeply connected to rationality and to irrationality. Plato’s approach has much to recommend it- it addresses madness from the point of view of a person who aims to lead a good life.
From an artist’s perspective, the relationships between rationality, irrationality, and madness are crucially important. We do not want to lapse into the kinds of madness that impedes our lives, makes us captive to obsessions, compulsions, mood disorders and the like, but we also do not want to miss out on forms of madness that make our art richer and more interesting.
As stated earlier, loss of control, as seen through an artist makes one think that for an artist this is the way of creativity and ability. The artist has to be a bit mad to conjure up images that endlessly fascinate those thought to be rational and in control.
For the ‘sane’ rational person, any suspicion of madness would be detrimental to his or her reputation and cause others to question their activities. Although a small amount of craziness is acceptable in certain circumstances, the overall fact is one must eventually return to a rational state.
The truth of the matter is artists are not mad at all. Society finds it more appealing to believe art was created through great madness. It not only adds to the mystery but also to the eventual worth and prestige of the artist.