Expressing your art

Well, its not easy.

What I have seen and observed about many great and famous artists is that they cannot explain what they have made. And if you think about it, if they could talk and write that easily then they would have been writers or speakers, and not artists!

Its that simple.

I decided to write about this today, because I was seeing this pattern with most artists. I attended some contemporary Indian artist's presentations recently. Well, in this writing I am just going to concentrate on Subodh Gupta and Bharti Kher.

What I saw was, excellent work in the form of sculptures, paintings and lots of art forms in the most creative extraordinary mediums. The thought of even expressing mundane and simple thoughts in the most fascinating and tedious dexterity is in itself simply beautiful. Now anyone, who paints abstract, or appreciates abstract art forms can understand or at least try and understand Subodh's work in 'bartans' or for that matter Bharti's sperm-shaped bindis. But when you finally hear them live, it is almost disappointing for most people. I had a talk with few art collectors after Subodh's presentation. Not only did they fail to understand the art form but also also felt that the artist was 'fake' or 'unreal'.

I only blame the process of explanation here and this is exactly what I will be elaborating on.

What I am about to suggest, can be applied to most artists.

I feel the artist, being the maker and the creator, should definitely try and explain what the thought or the 'feeling' was while creating the art pieces. But if he or she can only only explain so much and feels the lack of communication as a barrier, a third person must step in the conversation. By conversation here I mean a dialect between 3 persons. The first person being the 'art' itself, the second the 'creator' and third, the 'vocalist' as i would like to call him or her. The vocalist, should be good and familiar with the art of speaking, writing and most importantly understanding the art and the creator. He or she should transfer the knowledge to the maximum possible. This way the artist can hold his or her dignity of not having to over explain everything about their work and also just keeping it as mysterious as they wish to. And yet the inner wanting of people to understand their work without them speaking can also be taken care of. I know some you may argue that the mystery or freedom of self-interpretation of the art may get lost somewhere. But I don't feel so, as we still have the freedom even after listening to the vocalist.

Here is another way to understand this. Imagine a famous and beautifull actress wins an award for the best actress. Now how easy or even right would it be for her to praise herself, admire her beauty in front of all her fans? She can thank the ones who made it possible for her to be there. She can appreciate the film she worked in. But wouldn't it be too much for her to talk about her particular expression with her beautiful blue eyes in one particular scene? Even if she wants to and wished you could understand. And so mostly you'll notice the presenter doing that for her; presenting and explaining her work as she steps on the stage in the lime light. This would be the vocalist in case of an artist.

The artist on the other hand, is probably a lot more introvert and most probably expressing their thoughts through their art mediums. It is tough and asking for too much indeed for them to praise and explain every thought and feeling that went in to making their art exist.

That's alright if some artists are gifted of having the talent to express in words as well. But for those who cannot and maybe even shouldn't, the vocalist's role to me is absolutely necessary.