One of these artworks was designed by Piet Mondrian, a famous french abstract painter. It sold for $15,000. The other was created by a disabled student at Metro school in Charlotte, N.C. This artwork hangs up on their school walls and is also featured on their postcards sold during school fundraisers. It can be purchased in postcard size for $1.99.
Anyone familiar with Mondrain would recognize his iconic colored squares immediately in the second picture. However, what if one didn't know who Mondrain was or what his works looked like? Would they instantly be able to tell which painting was "high" art and which one was created by a "disabled" artist? Perhaps not. Both artworks both feature shapes and colors. Could anyone know which one our society deems "better"? Would people acknowledge that huge amounts of effort were put into both artworks and put them on an even playing field? I would certainly hope so.
Even if one could guess the famous piece, what value would they put on the Metro student's work? How much would they be willing to pay for the student's work? $15,000? Not very likely. But more than $2? Most definitely.
I am familiar with Metro's postcard fundraisers because my brother attends the school and actively participates in the artwork. Since his cerebral palsy limits limb movement, his art tends to be splotches of paint on canvas. The only thing he can somewhat control is what color he wants and where wants it. Are his often-misplaced color splotches art? To me, absolutely. Many might argue that art has to have a goal, or convey a message to viewers. But I believe that art just needs to be a mastery of anything. And my brother has mastered his own limited art skills. First he has to consciously work to make at least one of his fingers bend around a paintbrush. Then he puts all of his attention into making sure his arm can dip the brush into the color he wants. Finally he needs to train his muscles to make the short path from the paint to his paper. All for one splotch of color on a piece of paper. This process alone could take him upwards of half an hour for something you or I could do in seconds. There are also some days when his muscles just aren't capable of mastering any of those steps. But he can do it. Instead of giving up and declaring, "I can't do art" like most of us say, he tries over and over again. Eventually, his paper is covered with colors and hanging on Metro's school walls where all of his friends can see it. By that point, you can see his smile from ear to ear literally every time his drives his wheelchair by his painting. He's mastered his art, and overcame more obstacles than I've ever encountered to do so.
I would argue that my brother is an artist. Not a "disabled" artist mind you, but a bona fide artist. The film Arts: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination would concur. This documentary dealt with "disabled" artists, the political correctness that leads to such terms, and what "art" actually means. Similar to my standpoint, they argued that a mastery of absolutely anything can be considered art- including everything from painting the Sistine chapel to learning how to perfectly tie your shoelaces.
Whether people appreciate your art or not should be irrelevant, it should be something you have worked on, mastered, and love. No matter if it is sold for thousands of dollars or hanging up on your refrigerator, it is still worthwhile art. This runs true for both disabled and "regular" artists. And your world will still be enriched for having completed it.
Something that worries me is that art once deemed "bad" can be lauded and sold once people know it was created by someone with a disability. Why are new venues opened if the artist has, for example, autism? Does society pity them? Or are they more respected for accomplishing their art in spite of mental or physical handicaps? I tend to think it is the former. For example, if someone saw my brother's work and I told them it was done by a 17-year-old, they would most likely think it was terrible. If I told them his circumstances, they would suddenly say something like, "Oh it is beautiful." Is it though? They should respect the amount of work that he put in it and what it represents to him, not suddenly change their mind and comment merely on its aesthetic appeal. Art may be relative, but hard work and mastery aren't. Hopefully, more people can be as open-minded as the Arts documentarians were and see that there is a lot more to be said for art than high-selling profits and subjective beauty.
Whether people appreciate your art or not should be irrelevant, it should be something you have worked on, mastered, and love. No matter if it is sold for thousands of dollars or hanging up on your refrigerator, it is still worthwhile art. This runs true for both disabled and "regular" artists. And your world will still be enriched for having completed it.
Something that worries me is that art once deemed "bad" can be lauded and sold once people know it was created by someone with a disability. Why are new venues opened if the artist has, for example, autism? Does society pity them? Or are they more respected for accomplishing their art in spite of mental or physical handicaps? I tend to think it is the former. For example, if someone saw my brother's work and I told them it was done by a 17-year-old, they would most likely think it was terrible. If I told them his circumstances, they would suddenly say something like, "Oh it is beautiful." Is it though? They should respect the amount of work that he put in it and what it represents to him, not suddenly change their mind and comment merely on its aesthetic appeal. Art may be relative, but hard work and mastery aren't. Hopefully, more people can be as open-minded as the Arts documentarians were and see that there is a lot more to be said for art than high-selling profits and subjective beauty.
No comments:
Post a Comment