As a painter who values my craft, I hold a specific view on art that I believe will remain unchanged, regardless of outside influence. Simply put, not everything is art—far from it.
My definition of art is simple: it’s something created with careful, deliberate thought during both the planning and execution stages. While creative observations can emerge afterward, it’s the intentionality behind the creation that defines what we call "Art." It’s not about some written explanation crafted to boost sales or lend credibility after the fact.
I say this because the art world has become overly fixated on the words written about "art" after it's made. Tom Wolfe’s *The Painted Word* captures this issue perfectly: “Not seeing is believing, you ninny, but believing is seeing, for modern art has become completely literary: the paintings and other works exist only to illustrate the text.”
This reality is disappointing, but it’s the truth. It often involves dressing up something mediocre with pretentious language to make it seem like genius. It’s a larger-scale version of that one student in your liberal arts class who tries to impress the professor with unnecessarily complex explanations of something that is “Not that deep bro”.
An artist’s explanation can enhance the meaning of a piece. It can bring out a lot of meaning from the art. But, when it becomes the sole reason why the art is valuable it is problematic. This is not a real quote but I think you will get the idea of the kind of thing that bothers me. “The kind of willingness to embrace the chaos of human emotion and put that emotion into the canvas is priceless. If a humans impulsiveness is not art, then what is”? And then you see the work and it’s a couple geometric shapes and a frowning emoji.
Art requires trial and error. It requires effort. It requires skill.
Understanding color theory is important, but it’s not enough. A simple choice of vermilion (red-orange) paired with turquoise might look nice, but that alone doesn’t make it art. It’s a good choice, but it lacks the depth of skill and effort needed to elevate it.
There is also a counter-argument going around claiming, “Illustrators are not artists.” It’s a way to put down talented artists by saying they cannot achieve “Fine Art” status because all they do is create a perfectly accurate depiction of something. The people making this argument are the same ones who enjoy geometric shapes with a frowning emoji. It’s a bullshit argument. It’s the “all rectangles are not squares, but all squares are rectangles” problem we learned in geometry. Great illustrators are fine artists, but not all “fine artists” are fine artists. You know what I mean?
I’ll even go a step further and say that many tradesmen are more artists than many modern artists. A stonemason building a wall with precision and beauty creates more art than a painter simply throwing two colors on a canvas. The only difference is that the fancy modern artist thinks of themselves as a groundbreaking intellectual, while the tradesman humbly creates practical and beautiful work.
None of this is to say that all abstract art isn't valid. Far from it—selective textures, colors, and compositions can result in beautiful and thought-provoking pieces. But it’s clear when there’s no genuine thought or effort behind it.
To make my point clearer, here's a helpful example: Late Picasso = Good, Jackson Pollock = Bad. I hate Jackson Pollock. I could go on a rant about it, but I’ll hold back for now to avoid getting too worked up.
***You do not have to agree with me. You are allowed to have a different stance on art I am not saying I am the only one allowed to have an opinion and anyone that disagrees is stupid. This is simply how I view it.*