Art... "What's it to ya"

        A topic of discussion that I'd like to touch on in this blog entry is one that I hope starts a conversation or two all around. For any of us out there, whether you're a "professional artist", occasional doodler, the person who buys almost every last print that they happen to come across in an Art-con or Comic-con because it "totally speaks" to them, or that guy who likes the invigorating workout of splattering insane amounts of primary colored acrylic paints on a canvas that's about as big as the side of a barn: we all have our treasured opinions as to what art is, or what we would accept a work of art to look like. This, to me, is all very fine and dandy, but it could leave a lot of leeway for much criticism; (good, bad, or ugly). Now criticizing anyone's work isn't bad, when used totally in a nondestructive connotation, it can be quite the helping hand an artist needs to find out if any specific techniques could be used, what media to be using, all of that sort of good stuff that can emphasize an emotion, draw a spectator's eye towards certain directions, etc. The only real folly of voicing an opinion/suggestion of other pieces is the vast variety of opinions had due to whatever the circumstances; I couldn't tell you how many times I've known someone who get this undeserved sense of grandeur just because of a few semesters of print making, figure drawing, and an art appreciation class. (Seriously guy, being in community college art classes, and getting a "good job" from the instructor on your ebony pencil figure drawing with the hand you don't use all the time, doesn't immediately put you in the spot to just not give any constructive/destructive criticism to anyone who doesn't ask for it.) I don't know. I just feel like there's a couple different areas that should be weighed while determining what art is.

     Are you aware of the fact that America is an accumulative of differing ideas, cultures, languages, thought patterns, hobbies, and much more? We all should be by now.. Wouldn't it make sense that all of us, national and international, as human beings with intricate emotions, would all have individual ideas or principals that are very near and dear to our hearts? Art- well actually...creativity.. is an expression; something that's made to embody a moment in time that influenced someone, and did it in such a way that every fiber of that someone's being had to project that feeling onto something more permanent than memory. Now, this principle results in a multitude of works and projects. For example: Could any of us living now possibly know what exactly sparked Da Vinci to paint a view from a high cliff or maybe a bridge, overlooking a body of water; know why Picasso went in a child-like whimsical direction like cubism, or artists like David Choe to use the organic feel of street art graffiti as a template of creative control, and the quickness that taggers wield to spray as fast as they can, (mainly so they don't get caught), because he says that it's actually a kind of stroke or subject matter that would be more "honest" than mapping out something that the masses would appreciate? The point of bringing up all the diversity in America prior to the references of a couple well-known artists, was basically to drive the point that we all not only speak in different languages, but at times we even think in different languages as well. What the most important thing about all the translation in these languages isn't being able to speak that exact language at that point in time, it's about deciphering the message. How I see it, as long as we genuinely understand what the artist is getting at, then the work of art has done it's job in society.