When I was a young artist, I was fascinated with charcoal pencil and paper. Especially after that ah-ha moment when I realized all I had to do was copy what I saw with my eyes exactly onto the paper.
Eventually I began making some very realistic drawings. But rather than getting inspired to progress, peculiar as it may sound I lost interest! Maybe it was because I was also studying photography and developing my own pictures. I rationalized that if people wanted an exact copy of an image, why not just snap a photo of it?
As I got older it dawned on me that the more advanced and realistic a drawing was, the more attention the artist who drew the picture received. Many of the artists that I knew at the time would trace photos, or use overhead projectors and that just seemed silly. Art was about something different than that to me.
I guess at that time, I had no real understanding of interpretation or metaphor so I opted to create images that were not nouns. I think that I still prefer creating verbs or adjectives and would rather have an ambiguous, colorful, textured image hanging in my own home even if it were another artist’s creation.
I often wonder how many others share the same preference as I do.
Interestingly though now as I sit and ponder this, I wonder how I might like to have the original Starry Night or Night Café hanging in my living room?! Yes, I do believe I would! I’m now wondering if my decision is polluted by the knowledge of their worth and prestige or their beauty. Hmmm. This is an interesting thought isn’t it?
Would Van Gogh’s real life masterpieces still affect me in the same way if they were presented without all the hype? I guess I will never know for sure . . . but I certainly hope that they would!
: ) Peace