Are we to be ruled by the maximum of what works is the rule?… or instead, do we find ourselves self destructive to a fault… are we a pleaser?.. a rebel… a colorist… a figurative artist?… do we have a preference for the easy out of the abstract… is it meaningless without meaning… are we a habitual narrator… an explainer… an explorer… solely reliant on the crutch of function for validation…
We unconsciously succumb to our born temperaments. Of upholding. Of obliging. Of questioning. Of rebellion.
We relax into strategies that engineer a projected image.
We play to our styles of attachment.
We actively individuate our self-identity with what we are doing, and describe our ideas with what’s been done.
Learning to be an unreliable artist is proving to be not as straight forward as refusing to ‘ give a fuck’ about what anyone else expects. Originally, it seemed to be an easy ask, but outright dismissing what’s being socially validated as ‘good’, and instead, feeding one’s own curiosities and exploring one’s own aesthetic tastes, ends up running into areas where the only audience member validating the work being done is the person doing the work.
Brian Eno had referenced the assertion that, as artists, we are defined not as much by what we can do as by instead what we cannot do…
…and I completely agree.
It’s becoming a strategy of veering away from detailed visual description, leaning instead towards a position where detail is subservient to the composition and play of value on the page.
While I have an ability to capture detail, due to my personality, the act of staying focused quickly looses out instead to the action and delight of making marks and laying in value.