Thoughts on what makes art interesting to look at.

I guess in order for art to be interesting the viewer must be able to empathize with what the artist is attempting to bring to focus. This doesn't have to be terribly limiting, if you think about it in an abstract manor. It could mean that the artist paints abstract expressionist work, and they are trying to get you to feel a pure emotion, whether it be beauty, agitation, whatever. Or with conceptual art, it is more of an idea to empathize with. Conceptual art is capable of getting more complicated with specifically what the idea is that the viewer should relate to, such as a specific phrase in a jenny holzer piece, but it's really all about whether one can relate. bad art is just a thing that the viewer looks at, and it doesn't connect with the viewer beyond what it actually is physically. it speaks nothing. even the idea means nothing. I mean, it is possible for there to be a conceptual piece specifically talking about the work being about "nothing", but that still is something to empathize with beyond the work ACTUALLY not being about anything. Assuming the artist can pull it off.

Now beyond just the ability to allow the viewer to enter empathetically, I think each individual viewer has certain triggers that they specifically connect to more directly because of their aesthetic and life experiences. For example, I connect strongly with figurative painting over other forms of art, because I've spent time making that kind of work myself and I understand how difficult it is first hand, and also can see intricacy of empathetical thought behind brush strokes just from extended exposure and study of past art history. Just as when you meet a new person, hearing their back story helps you get to know them a little bit better and feel a stronger connection to them.

Certain imagery can be overdone, and will therefor lose its meaning from overexposure. For example, direct landscape or plant paintings, while i admit it is still possible to feel the intention behind this type of work, is rarely successful. Van gogh did it and it remains meaningful still. But I think his work because his flowers are almost like people. You don't see them as flowers as much as you see the artist himself projected through his flowers. This is one of my favorite things about painting, that no matter what a good painter does, behind the image you can see exactly how the artist felt while they were creating the work. Well I guess this is most obviously true to expressive artists, but I would argue that you could say the same to more technical painters such as Chuck Close. I haven't studied this type of work as must so I can't speak that in depth, but I imagine him to be a relatively obsessive compulsive man who has a very careful and specific method of approaching all elements of his life as he does his artwork.

I recently did yet another self portrait. This time it was made from collaged paper that I layered and allowed to curl and have some 3D elements to it. There seems to be some sort of stigma attached to making self portraits. I mean it isn't an unacceptable thing to do, and many artists throughout history have included them in their work, or even exclusively worked in self portraits. I feel like only doing self portraits is a little too self gratifying. I mean seriously. If painted correctly(whatever that means), anything can be a self portrait! Back to Van Goghs flowers, that could be considered a self portrait in a sense. As could any of his other paintings. He painted what he felt, and what you feel is an expression of the self. God knows why that means we have to look at hundreds of pictures of an artists face over and over again. Van Gogh had many fascinating self portraits, although I don't find them to be the most captivating of his work.

end rant i'm going back to bed.