To understand my artwork, it is first necessary to understand what for me, is fine art. The definition of art or fine art is subjective, and I don't intend to sugest that what I beleive is art is a finite truth. It is important however to at least touch upon the distinctions I draw in the realm of art to fully understand what it is I do. The easiest way for me to go about this is to say what I do not condider fine art.
Illistration is not art. This may be a controversial statement, and I am sure there is an occasional exception, but in most instances, illistration is to art, what graphic design is to design itslef. It is utilitarian in nature. it does not try to express something so much as it tries to literalize it.
Decorative art is not art. A huge majority of the work we see day to day in bussiness offices, prints in peoples houses, restaraunts, etc. is decorative art. It is made for the sole purpose of looking pleasent. It is made to fade into the background, not to be noticed, to fill space, to avoid controversy. There is a huge market in this field, and many of these works sell for enormous sums. but alas in the search for true art, they hold no value.
Craft is not art. There is a great interest in the craft movement these days. Often mislabled as "Outsider art" craft is created for a specific use, or tradition. This does not have to cheapen it, and indeed some craft is quite brilliant and inventive. but ultimatley it is the decoration and design of an item of utility. Art's utility is not of this world.
Conceptual art, is not art. For me art must strive for something higher, to simply abstract is not enough. Conceptual art is more of an analogy than an art. It shows what is already there, it tries to derive significance in it's own self imposed complexity. It complicates, where-as art should simplify. This is not to say that good art cannot be unbeleivably complex, but that it's ultimate goal is to unify, not difract this complexity.
Realism is usually not art. A peice of artwork that shows only what is already there has no real purpose. If it is already there, the only point in showing it would be to make a statement. Art is not about statements for me. I often find realism to be "classical" conceptual art. The exception to this classification would be surrealism. which if done well, moves beyond the distortion of realism for concept, and moves into the sub concious, or the realm of the heart, or emotion, as in Dali's work.
So we have thrown out 95% of the artwork we see day to day in defining our art. What's left over? An art that is neither self serving, complascent, nor utilitarian. It must have selfless purpose, theoretically this could be either benevolent, or malevolent, but it must move beyond an imediate use. It must show something that is not obvious. It must show truth, it must be original and from the soul. It must contain elements that did not come from concious decisions. In short, it must come from a higher place, whether that be your own mind, God, energy, hope, optimism, but it is not wholley of your concious self.
What I creat is true art. when I sketch, it's art. When I do a practice drawing, it is art. The ultimate result of anything I draw, no matter how hard I trie on occasion, slides into a creative blur of art. I am incapable of creating a preconceived predesigned picture or object. This is not to say every painting or drawing I have ever done has been successful, but just to day that I do not ever try to make "pretty pictures" or abstract a concept, or explore a style. The end result of good art is a pretty picture, to try simply to paint a pretty picture would be like writting a book with no other concept than it's own beaty. Where's the story line? The idea of expressing a concept, or exploring styles is tottaly foreign to me. It seems illogical, and odd that anyone would do such a thing. While my art may be reminiscient of certian styles, I have never done this conciously. I put the paint where it feels like going. I will get into greater detail on this issue later as I talk about each of the "styles" of my artwork. Ironically in many instances I have never seen a work of art in a similar style until after I have done it, and then come accross another artist who has used similar techniques. As I will explain later, to say that I ever painted like Van Gogh, would be a grossly inacurate statement, and cheapen both my work and Van Gogh's. the relationship purley coincidental.