wardoggie:
“Art becomes so specialized as to be comprehensible only to artists, and they complain bitterly of public indifference to their work. For since the artist in such times has no need to say much, but only to be notorious for some small originality and consequently lauded by a small…
Kandinsky actually scorned the creation of “art for art’s sake” in his essay, so I’m kind of confused about why you mentioned it. It is also something that I see kinda as bullshit as well, as it is a philosophy of privilege more than anything.
Kandinsky also does not (from what I’ve read so far, anyway) deride art made by commission or for sale or about it being a commodity. He is much more interested in the spiritual creation of the piece, rather than the reason behind it. Michelangelo’s Pieta may have been a commission, but when I saw it in person it left an everlasting impression on me. The reason for its creation was irrelevant; the soul etched into the piece and the emotion emitting from the carving, the unique depiction of Mary and Jesus that allows you to question why Michelangelo chose to illustrate the scene the way he did, makes it a true icon of its time and a brilliant piece of art.
My post was also made from a painter’s point of view, a painter who is in a time and country where the privilege to express emotion and vision is allowed outside of a limited scope. As an artist I am definitely interested in getting my work out there, in selling it and being able to make a living. I mean, I’m an illustrator for crying out loud… that much is obvious. But when it comes to my personal work that is free from the restrictions of trying to make a living, when I am making work that has no reason to exist other than my own weird obsession with image-making, I personally feel a need to create things that are more than just what will allow my work to be “appreciated” by critics or my audience. It is not for art’s sake, but for a more personal emotional need.
Artists such as Murakami and Hirst, who also have this privilege, have no “soul” in their work as their art is not only mass-produced, but created by people other than themselves. Their “battle for success” as Kandinsky infers, is completely materialistic. Which is fine, really. But the art lacks the personality, purpose and air that comes from artists and artisans who truly display themselves in their work, no matter their medium or their reason for creating it, and reeks of being obsessed with material gain. A lot like a really bad, flashy movie with no substance made by an already wealthy director for no reason other than what can be overly gained by making the work.
In this way, I have difficulty taking their work seriously and it scarcely affects me on a personal level. Let alone on my art. I do not really mind that other people find genius in their work, but I cannot call it good art. It does not mean that it can’t be fun to look at or anything, it is just lacking.
After all, it is not difficult at all to find vast personality, purpose and beauty in pottery and statues made for practical use in early history, religious art, and even in art and literature made purely for propaganda, but with people like Hirst I find nothing. Kandinsky’s reaction to the work of his time just sort of resonated with me.
TL:DR art for art’s sake is bullshit but contemporary modern art is so soulless, materialistic and off-putting that many people who are not artists or collectors usually walk away from modern art museums going “what the hell did I just see?” Since Kandinsky felt that modern art would help remedy this, I find his essay kinda ironic.
