This
is an extremely interesting question. I think it depends, mostly, on your definition of art
and artist. Also, this depends on the artists or authors goal in creating his or her work.
Some artists seek to portray something outside of themselves while others attempt to convey some
interior sense, belief, or emotion.
Art is generally considered a kind of
expression. In that respect, we assume that every artist creates something that expresses a
truth or belief that is important to him or herself. If we consider a work of art as the
expression of an individual artist, then we have to say no: it is not possible to completely
remove the author from their creation. This is especially true in the more abstract forms of
art, whether it be painting, poetry, or sculpture.
That is the difference
between an artist and a craftsman. The craftsman works with the end product in mind, and his
intent is to create it as perfectly as possible. Say, in the form of a table or cabinet. The
artist, on the other hand,
cannot work in this manner:
Artists dont know what they are going to express until they have expressed it is a watchword
of the expressionist. They cannot state in advance what a completed work of art will be like.
("Philosophy of Art,"
Encyclopedia
Britannica, linked below)
However, some artists work very hard to create a piece of art that does not reflect
themselves. Still life painters, for example, strive to paint the scene exactly as it
lookswithout exaggeration or changing the nature of any of the items. A photographer might also
fit into this category. Most would tell you, though, that even in the case where an actual image
is presented, unaltered, the artist is still there behind the scenes. The artist chose the
frame and set up the picture. Therefore, even if it is subtle, they are not completely removed
from the work. Indeed, the artist and the work are inseparable.
No comments:
Post a Comment