The "Dance Between"

This is a photograph of the lovely ice crystals that are covering the branches and future buds of the lavender bush in my front yard. It's like living in the middle of a spun sugar world. 

I stumbled across a book called Creative License, The Art of Gestalt Therapy while I was researching for this post. 

My original topic was artistic ideology and whether or not it seemed relevant to artists working today.  I admit, I'm easily sidetracked into the psychological end of art. While I often find great insight, I'm just as prone to be throwing shoes at the computer  and wondering why non-artist psychologists are so eager to ascribe disorderly or dysfunctional thinking to the artistic personality.

Of course, my daughter the psychologist would simply raise one eyebrow at such antics as if to say "you have to ask?" 

But I did find the phrase "dance between" in one of the essays in the Creative License book, and it struck me as a good description of what artists - at least through my own artistic experience - are constantly doing as they create, especially now at this time of rapid economic and social change. 

I can't do justice to this essay by summarizing it here, but for those of you who also suffer from a need to know, I've included the link above.  The part of the essay I do want to include involves the idea of relationships and an interaction between participants, not only the collaborative element (artists inspiring the work of other artists) but between the artist and the patron.

    "But if the artistic enterprise is collective, relationships are important.  And establishing a relationship with the receivers of the art may be of critical import" (pp 56).

This phrase connected back to what I was thinking about with regard to ideology, and the role it may play in helping to establish the artist's relationship with the "receivers of the art."

In 2002, Wolf Kahn gave a provocative talk at Wheaton College, titled Six Good Reasons Not To Paint Landscapes.  I find some new bit of insight in this talk every time I listen to it, as I try to clarify my own sense of relevancy as an artist. What I like most about this talk, though, is the way it challenges me to think about my motives right now. Am I succumbing to the pressure of commercialism? Creating a version of what Kahn describes as"wall furniture" - possessing qualities that "people who really don't care enough about art love the most"? 

I am curious as to what you think: Is it possible that, for many artists- particularly over the past several decades - the ideology behind their work has disappeared and the relationships with the receivers of the art have changed?

Do you have an artistic ideology that sustains your work?  Or do you fluctuate between conflicting demands?

How to you establish the dance between your art and the receivers of art?

Comments

[TracyW]

Interesting food for thought!

I see the ideology in the conceptual part of the creative process. Then as it becomes more hands-on, the potential dance with the receiver comes more into play.

I see the ideal dance with the receiver includes not only "connecting" on what the art stirs up in someone, but also the commercial (size, materials, price) aspects.

[Martin]

Thank you for this rich post.
I am constantly working on my "ideology" and understanding of what I do as artist. This is part of my artistic production. The ideas for new projects emerge from these considerations.The thoughts about the way potential viewers might establish a relationship, how they might see the work and the artist are very important. In fact I am very much interested how and in which direction I can manipulate the viewers, influence their "view" on my work,its content,subject and the ideology that is behind it.

In my thinking I also search for a solid foundation for my artwork, it has to be relevant for me. And I have to give answers to questions, why is it relevant and how can I express that etc. The knowledge and awareness of other artists work and their ideologies (historic and contempory)is also very important for these considerations.

As soon as the work exsists, the judgement and the critic goes on until the next work is begun. Quite often it seems that the change in the works follows with a time lag after the mind changed. Thinking seems ahead of the practical work until you do something while handling the materials which has not been in your theoretical calculations before at all. In both spheres, thinking and handwork, there are discoveries to make,and both spheres need each other to close the loop.

Commercial considerations are only one part of the relationship with viewers. The decision about medium and format can be influenced by commmercial considerations for example. Of course it is possible to narrow the communication down to commercial aspects, which might then dictate subject and style too.

I have to deal with conflicting demands in practise. Those which come from the outside, from people who want to commission work for example, can be identified easily. But those which are sneaking around inside of you and interfere sometimes on an unconscious level are not that easy to handle. At last we do not create to hide our work in drawers. We want to see it admired by somebody.

[tammy vitale]

I HATE this idea that creating to sell is crass commercialism (no, not your statement alone because it seems to be everywhere). I create because there is energy which wishes expression. My best work is an expression of my being a most excellent conduit and getting out of the way of the energy that is being called *by someone other than me.* I create to sell because out there somewhere is a person calling to this energy. What is it about the arts that so sets them above and beyond sales and marketing if they are "pure?" Isn't that its own brand of sales and marketing?