rutledge

Yes, I know how this title may sound, but please know that I’m not trying to stir up anything. I’m just going to try and provide some context to help clear up a couple of issues for some who may have questions about what is artistic “fact” and what is subjective opinion about art. I’ve placed this topic in the “Students” section on this forum, as one has to really be interested in this sort of thing or it falls flat and serves no purpose.

We first have to understand that all artistry is based on a few simple formulae. These are the fundamentals of balance, proportion and composition that apply to all arts; visual, aural, static, dynamic, 2-dimensional, 3-dimensional, etc… These fundamentals are based not on arbitrary ideas, but on basic human psychology, perception and understanding.

Some of these fundamentals are constant – having a basis in ordinary human traits. Others are transient or ephemeral – based on specific cultures, environments, contemporary trends, or even vary with the specific elements involved in the work of art.

Some, when trying to discuss these fundamental conventions, refer to them as “rules.” This is a mistake, as rules are arbitrary and set down after a consensus of choice. Artistic fundamentals are not arbitrary, but rather more closely akin to natural law. We do not obey these laws of perception and understanding because we choose to, but because it is natural for us to.

Certain specific artistic formulae, artistic fundamentals, are what can be called artistic fact. They’re constant and inescapable, either because of our humanness or because of certain situational considerations in specific cases. They define what is most communicative and what constitutes the best sort of composition to facilitate artistic communication.

But while these fundamentals define the basis for artistic composition, they do not define the fullness of artistry. Dozens or perhaps thousands of individual choices above and beyond fundamentals go into producing a work of art. These choices cannot be governed by “facts” or laws, but rather are what set one artist apart from another. But by the same token any work that is fundamentally unsound because it ignores the basis of artistic composition will be deficient or simply fail no matter the flair and creativity otherwise involved.

And this issue is likely the most common point of contention among those not fully acquainted with fundamental artistry. Flair and creativity is often not difficult to recognize. Elements that make this work of art different from that work of art are easy to perceive. Such differences can make an impression – a surface impression – that scores high opinion points among many viewers/listeners. But the thing to keep in mind is how the work functions at its base; how fundamentally sound it is.

As I said before, some fundamentals are transient and ephemeral. They change according to certain factors determined by the specifics of the work. Often, the creativity and flair in the work will have appropriately compensated for divergences from fundamentals – yes, divergence is possible. This is, in fact, quite essential in artistry. There must be variation and creativity, or all art would be too similar and quite boring.

Sometimes, but not always, it takes a significant grasp of fundamental artistry to recognize just how well a work has accomplished the task of being clever or innovative when toying with fundamentals. Sometimes the level of success is obvious, but usually there are varying opinions about artistic success in these cases. Artists can tell if it is the fundamentals or the creativity that is most responsible for the varying opinions. Laymen will usually focus only on the flair and creativity. Thus arises artistic debate that involves some citing artistic fact and others citing opinion as the chief issue of contention.

This sort of debate is usually irreconcilable and the only remedy is for all involved to have similar levels of artistic understanding. Since this is not likely to happen in forums like this, we’re left where we are. Some say the only thing to do is to ensure that there is discussion segregation, where artists discuss artistry and non-artist enthusiasts discuss other matters. My guess is that we’re going to continue to have irreconcilable debase on bonsai artistry. But I hope that those not well acquainted with art’s fundamentals can give some benefit of the doubt when an artist starts citing things like “facts” and “laws.” ;-) When in doubt, asking a question is far more productive than leveling an accusation.

Kind regards,
Andy

Advertisement