"Sunflower"  Artist Christine Alfery

A couple of weeks ago I stated that I was again thinking about "what is art?" Tough question and Hedy Mainmann reponded that art is like life. I ask is art really like life? She isn't the only person who has made that statement. It is a simple statement but the complexity of thought behind it has been discussed for many years. If art is life does it imitate life? Just the word imitate causes a problem for me. Without going into huge detail I will just say no imitation - if it is art it is a thing in itself. 

Several years ago I wrote a paper on Michel Foucaults statement "Why should the lamp or the house be an art object, but not our life." I agree our life can be an art object as Foucault suggests here - but I disagree than just any lamp, or house can be an art object - not just anything can be "art." Many things can imitate art but not many things can be "art." 

Kandinsky and Rhythm

"Figuring It Out"  Artist Christine Alfery Watercolor and Acrylic on Paper.

Wassily Kandinsky continued. How to Be an Artist, According to Wassily Kandinsky

For the past three posts I have been making comments on an ARTSY EDITORIAL BY RACHEL LEBOWITZ JUN 12TH, 2017 7:07 PM. This is post 4 on "How to Be an Artist, According to Wassily Kandinsky."

Lesson #4 Inject rhythm into your painting, like a musical score.

It makes sense that Kandinsky would link rhythm to his work. His lines and mark making are very gestural. And it makes sense that Kandinsky would say as he did in #1 that art expresses the inner world of the artist, and not artistic trends, and in #2 where he states that an artist should not paint things, but paint in abstract form. Kandinsky was an abstract expressionist. 

Again though I return to the concept of the abstraction. A materialist would conclude that the concept of the abstraction or abstract art is a frill, an indulgence unrelated to reason or to man’s life in this world. Could this be Kandinsky’s abstraction? The spiritualist would agree to the materialists concept of abstraction but would also go off into parts unknown and non material. Many say Kandinsky was not interested in this concept of abstraction. 

Kandinsky’s notion of abstraction and in turn abstract expressionionism, I believe is how he lived and how he searched for freedom. A freedom not linked to some mystical notion that could not be seen, but in a metaphysical notion of what could be imagined, and explored and intertwined with what is worldly. Abstract Expressionism was Kandinsky’s way of talking, expressing how he understood freedom. It was filled with rhythm, and movement and color and self. For Kandinsky his art was ties to his need to survive, not physically, but his need to survive in his consciousness, in his mind.

The mind is conceptual, it is a consciousness which integrates with philosophical values, like ethics, and freedom and choice. To inject rhythm into his work, like a musical score was to inject as Kandinsky stated his inner world and the conceptual conscious choice to integrate it with reality and to integrate it with his own happiness. That is how I understand Kandinsky, that is how I understand his work, and that is how Kandinsky has influenced so much of what I do.

How to Be an Artist, According to Wassily Kandinsky

ARTSY EDITORIAL BY RACHEL LEBOWITZ JUN 12TH, 2017 7:07 PM

  Lesson #2. Don’t paint things. Paint in abstract form. 

               Don’t paint things, but rather paint in abstract form, the editorial by Rachel Lebonwitz went on to say, “Monet’s now -iconic haystacks were an early influence on Kandinsky, who was struck by his own inability to identify the real world objects that the forms referenced. At first taken aback by this disconnect,” which I must admit I too have been taken aback, “Kandinsky soon embraced its possibilities, eventually insisting upon art that was not only abstracted but entirely non-representational.” And again Rachel Lebonwitz refers to the artists interior world, as if that world was an abstract form, that perhaps is “simplier” or different than the real world. Perhaps more imaginary and "non-representational."

               At the time that Kandinsky painted, his ideas created change in how one thinks about art. His works and ideas were revolutionary. But now because his thoughts have become common place, and abstract works are indeed "non-representational" and indeed do not represent even simple forms I find it hard to call this kind of work "art." There needs to be some some connection to reality – abstract works that represent nothing, cannot be art, as they are nothing. If even the simpliest forms represent something to the artist or the viewer then there is content and perhaps meaning and some value to the work which "might" be eventually be called "art."

The Individual Artist and the Collective Concept of Freedom.

There are five lessons here from Kandinsky - I will just comment on one today.

"Kandinsky did not intend for his theories to be prescriptive. Artmaking, he insisted, was about freedom. Nevertheless, there are several lessons that artists should heed if they are to meet Kandinsky’s requirements. We start with five below." https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-artist-kandinsky

Lesson #1: Express your inner world, not the latest artistic trends.

I totally agree that artmaking is about freedom. Two points - here the concept of freedom - if art is about a collective freedom then it isn't about the artists inner world? I think the point here is that the artist, does not have the power to create entities out of a void, the inner self being a void as the inner self is only interesting to the inner self and very subjective. This subjectivity makes art everything and anythings. In order to entertain the notion of freedom along with the self the notion of freedom needs to be objective not subjective. To make art totally subjective creates contradictions and a whole bunch of nothings. But then how does the artist make their subjectivity into the objective world that is out there and have it become a collective thought? The artist has the power to bring into existence an arrangement, integrations of natural elements that have not existed before. Artists have the power to change, creatively not forcefully, what is there into something beautiful. The self of the artist is not the self of the viewer or another artist, but linking this power to self and the notion of freedom there is then a collective creative concept of freedom that is a beautiful idea. This way of thinking as Kandinsky suggested cannot be prescriptive - yet at the same time can relate to freedom. It is a very tough thing to accomplish as we all fall into the trap of thinking our thoughts about freedom and self are the same as another individuals or artists thoughts. 

Christine Alfery MFA

Tightrope

When I begin working in the visual space of abstraction where imaginaries and concepts are floating around, I attempt to create a visual space where my free will makes choices as to what I want to see and what I want others to see.  That is where my training comes in, I have learned how to help others visually read the imaginaries, the concepts that float around in that abstract visual space. These concepts are real – a beautiful reality, they are objective, so others can see them also. They are not nonobjective. This for me is the struggle when I come to a blank white sheet of paper, to look for and emphasize in my work those concepts for which I believe in – independence, individuality and freedom and hope that others can see them also.  This is the challenge of my work.  These are the subjects in my work.

The piece I recently finished.  “Tightrope” Which is part of my Precious Jewels series.  Let me know if you can visualize, independence, individuality and freedom here.  Would love your feedback.

What is Art

My current thinking seems to be asking the age old question,  "What is art?" 

I don't know why I say my current thinking. I have been asking that question ever since post modernism with all of its relativity. Not only has art become part of the postmodern movement, it has also become less precious. It seems that everyone accepts comments such as "anyone can make art" and "it's all about your own personal interpretation or how one sees things." 

I believe art, aesthetics, are all about personal interpretation. That does not make art relative and subjective. How can I say that?

Everyone is unique and all “art” is unique.  If an object is not unique, original, and one-of-a-kind, then it isn’t art.  The idea, the concept and their uniqueness is art.  

Just like one person is unique to themselves and to their own individuality, “art” is unique to itself and its own individuality.  It does not depend on collective thinking.   NOT everyone’s ideas and concepts are art.  Not every individual is an artist. They may create something that looks like art. It may have a frame, and be in a gallery and the person who made it calls themselves an artist and their work art.  But it isn’t – if it is not unique. 

What makes art, art? Value. We should value it as art.  If everything is called art, there is no value in art. As a lifetime romantic, I believe art must have the ability to stress goodness, imagination, creativity, discovery, ability and virtue. These notions are all subjective. Subjectivity is unique, individual and not based on collective thinking. Modern art stops right here.  Modern art is nonobjective art. It works toward an unattainable utopia, white bless. It is based on a blissful romantic anticipation of something, a notion, a concept that never becomes real. 

What gives art reality?   I believe it is based on an objective reality, perhaps a romantic objective reality but still an objective reality.  The origin of the concept, the idea begins with the maker and their subjective individual uniqueness.   Art gains value through the maker's subjectivity. The objective reality is that others can relate to as they search for their own pursuit of happiness and their own liberty as they live their own lives. Life has struggle and creating value comes with a struggle. Without the struggle art, is nonobjective and mindless.

My current works speak to the subjective fluidity in concept and idea forming.  From this fluidity, a concept or idea is not yet objective.  I search for this objectivity, I struggle to find this objectivity as I create.  Why? Because I believe that the combination of fluid subjectivity and real objectivity give meaning and value to art.  I struggle to make this fluidity become real and relate to reality, to life, to my struggles and to my happiness and the happiness of others.  I believe that by making the work objective I make that reality work for me and what I believe in and hope that I inspire others at the same time to do likewise, as they too struggle to give meaning to their lives and have the meaning that they have created work for them.  Objective reality can be, personal, individual, and have unique meaning, not the collective meaning, of one size fits all.  If everyone worked towards their own happiness, their own reality and allowed others to do the same, I believe we would live in a very rich time indeed.  Instead, we seem to be sucking the creativity out of one to give it to another. Doing this, there will be no creativity, no art and no imagination. They will have no value and no meaning.  It is up an individual to create things for themselves, things that will make them uniquely happy.

Does Art Matter Any More?

New Work.  "Trip To The Beach"  20x60 Mixed Water Media  A Unique Original.

Does Art Matter Any More?

The foundations that I have and that I work with when I create a work of art are always challenging me.  For example, the notion of all art being subjective - as an expressionist I used to live and die by that notion. But, lately I have noticed that the foundations that I was taught many years ago don't work for me anymore.  I ask myself why,  I build from my history and values to try and figure out if art matters any more or not.

The notion of expressionism has changed for me. The word was once linked to independence and individualism.  But individualism and the struggle by others to capture my soul and my uniqueness and formulate it into their notion of selfness and subjectively have altered the notion of individualism as unique to individualism as anything goes - in particular the arts.

So, I ask, "Does art matter any more?  Is art a relationship of power with others or is it something that transcends these relationships, is universal (color blind so to speak) and natural?"

For me, expressionism has become my uniqueness and my ability to do what comes naturally. I have my eternal hope and I search for transcendence beyond the powers that try and subjugate my uniqueness.

The grids that are appearing in my work represent this search and represent subjectivity.