Art Is Tree

The notion of art and artist is forever being tested and re-defined. As a self-proclaimed wannabe artist and ex-arts worker, the definitions, assumptions, cliches and stereotypes that accompany this discussion, challenge and disappoint me in equal measure.

Working with arts students as I do currently, is interesting because art school is where many people come to live out their stereotype or have them reinforced by the previous generation of dilettantes-cum-tutors. To the public, artists can be seen to be vague, lazy, pretentious, arrogant, un-professional, difficult divas. Unfortunately this is one of the stereotypes that some artists love to live out, often the less talented ones.

In my dealing with artists, time and time again, I am confronted by people asking for special help and dispensation, because they are 'creative (A hugely over-used word). These 'creative' people believe that they deserve these special dispensations, as if it is a known fact and an unwritten law of the universe. It is often at this point that I ask why do 'creative people' deserve special rules and dispensations? Are artists needs more important than that of others? Are artists superior beings, the pinnacle of humanity and above nurses, teachers, plumbers and fast-food technicians? These questions are closely followed by "If artists are open-minded, capable, adaptable individuals as is claimed, why are they/us so high-maintenance? It is usually at this point, that the art-world bubble starts to burst! They are hard questions, especially to someone couched in the comfortable assumption that they are special and the world wants to bathe in their unique wondrousness.

In my art studies one of the most influential topics I studied was the Russian contstructivists of the post WW1 period. These artists faced with a western world in ruin, dismissed the notion of art for arts sake, in favour of art for the common Good. They though that artists should get involved in social causes, politics, architecture, engineering, clothing, apply themselves to rebuilding the world in a better way through becoming integral in the processes. Their image of the artist was as creative worker, in a boilersuit, pencils in pocket; a pragmatic, creative problem solver interacting on an essential level with society. Not playing peripheral party-pooper. Espousing a life on the margins of society whilst courting and demanding the same society give attention and reward to their special gifts.

In my work often I have been amazed by how bad artists are at communicating visually outside of their art-form. If it is to do with advertising, marketing, promotion or any other form of professional networking, artists tend to either fully refuse or resist as if it is an affront to their superior moral standing and altruism or engage so badly with them as to be damaging. As with most tools and systems, they are not inherently evil. Advertising is a tool for increasing awareness of something, this is a necessary tool and as ever it is how we use it that counts. Marketing and advertising offer the artist a fantastic opportunity to communicate their uniqueness, their visual language, their approach etc. to their target audience, in advance of the actual work, in the same way an entree might whet your appetite for the main course of a meal.

One of the other damaging things is the expectation of funding/grants/support which seems like a throwback to the old 'wealthy patron'. Patronage in the arts is important but it is also a trap of sorts. Art school sets up students to believe that they will not make money, they will not be taken seriously as professionals and they will not be valued. This teaching is often based on the bitter experience of tutors who clearly followed that trajectory. With this attitude, changing whatever prejudices the professional and public world has will be hard. Funding is great and it allows for exploration of important concepts that may not be commercially supported but advance and inform practice. However what use is a generation of artists going out into the world expecting a living, producing obscure temporal art-works that preach to the converted and deter the average viewer, however 'radical' and 'new' the concept appears according to the days fashions?

Personally for me art is about communicating ideas to the largest audience possible. These ideas should be produced practically and distributed as democratically as possible. As in the time of the constructivists, we need artists to engage with the modern world and bring what ever gifts they do have to bear on society. We don't need a lot of aloof creatives, watching from the backbenches as the world turns to custard saying "I'm not a part of this".

Of course 'horses for courses'. There is room for all and that is one of the wonderful things about the art-world. However don't profess to be one thing and demand another. Don't make inaccessible works in secret and expect to be rewarded in public, however 'important' the idea. Don't sell aesthetically pleasing objects with no message and expect to be feted as an visionary artist. And whatever you do don't expect the world to beat a path to your door and give you what you deserve or expect the world to pave the way from your door to the world, just in case you condescend to walk it one day.

With gifts come responsibilities not privileges. Do your work, work hard, represent yourself well, use your creativity in all areas of your life and practice, offer all, expect nothing - you are your own reward.