Sunday, August 24, 2008

Painting for fun!

red flowers

Recently I read a blog post by a professional artist in which she asked the question "Can anyone be an artist?". Without going into detail, I gathered that according to this blogger only some individuals who possess attributes such as aspecial drive to create and originality of expression can be artists. I have no argument with the notion of "specialness" that makes one an artist. The more important question to me (being neither a trained nor professional artist) seems to be "Can only artists create art?". I am sure any of you who read this will have your own views. Personally, I believe art is not the exclusive preserve of "artists". External perspectives, such as those of the audience, have a role in defining what is art. Hence, even the creation of a non-artist could be perceived as art is if the audience says so! This is the sort of external validation that separates, for example, graffiti that is unwanted from that agreed by many to be a form of atistic expression.

Philosophy aside, sometimes painting is just for fun and not a response to some inner angst that must drive creativity. Red Flowers is one such fun painting. It took only a few minutes to do. Perhaps to some it will appear trivial or reminiscent of grade school 'art'. But this little painting makes me smile every time I look at it. Tell me what you think.

Red Flowers, Acrylic on canvas board, 5"X7", (Not for sale)


  1. I would definitely take the blog of that so-called professional artist OUT of *my* favourites - if it was in there! I have found through experience that reading things like that are just so detrimental to my own creativity. (And with a full time job to work at before I *can* paint each day, I don't need any detriment what-so-ever. It ranks right up there with stress!) LOL.

    I agree with much of what you say in your post!

    Can only artists create art? Anyone can create art.

    You know the expression, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder? So is art. In my view, that is - but since I'm a self-declared nobody, my view doesn't hold any clout. lol

    There are many paintings hanging in museums that were painted by *artists* that make you shake your head and wonder, "who's eyes did the beholding with this one?" And there are many paintings hanging on the walls of private dwellings that belong in museums.

    Who passes the judgement that declares some pieces as art and other pieces as non-art? Like you said in your post - the audience!

    Who passes the judgement that declares you're an artist? Do they touch your shoulders with a holy grail of a sword of jewel encrusted gold as you kneel reverently on an extra large solid wood palette filled with your favourite juicy colours? Or perhaps it's an extra long paint brush dipped in permanent dioxazine purple paint? Do you think that maybe this is another use for Stonehenge that we don't know about? Hmmmm, I've just checked and there's no purple paint on my shoulders but I'll keep on painting because I love to paint.

    Okay, a lot of the above was said in jest but the next part is serious, k?

    I agree with many of the thoughts you put into your posting. But sorry Atul, I can't agree with your statement of your work appearing trivial or reminiscent of grade school art. To me, it looks like the work of someone who enjoys painting - someone who has the courage to put his enjoyment down on canvas or paper and someone who *does* have a special drive to create.

    And the most important part is that you enjoy doing it! Right?

    At least, that's the way I see it.

  2. Yes, this is a happy painting but in a surreal way. That horde of flowers is cheerful now, But....

    Just joking Atul. It`s a very sincere painting and that is what I think we all are looking for in art, conviction.