I could do that.

Why don't you then!

One thing I find myself doing too often is seeing a work of art and saying "I could do that." It's one of the motivators for actually painting for sure, but is it a lazy comment? None painterly art is often the target of these comments, but I won't discuss that now. 

This video is a condensed discussion on the comment and although a bit too long for the average blog viewer it raises some interesting points. I find myself slipping into the usual criticism that too much "modern" art is a load of talk about art, and I still think that is a valid point. For the art scholar it must irritate them that so many people denigrate their area of expertise and their passion so dismissively, but it can hold them up to ridicule when the end product doesn't resonate with the viewer - unless they are told what they are meant to experience. I can see it from both sides and also must remember that I also feel the need to explain why I painted something and what I'm trying to achieve with it!

Why do we expect art to be virtuosic, or a good and accurate representation of something? My search to improve technique is a constant struggle with this and both the inner critic and the opinions of others is predicated on this. The freedom to create my own vision is my aim and this mind set - that it has to be technically good and look like something known - is uppermost when planning and painting.

So what is art? Of course I don't know, but one definition amongst many for me is that when I see, hear or experience something I consider of artistic merit it has to invoke a feeling (not necessarily a feeling I like) that wouldn't have happened otherwise. I'm not sure I can express this in words and the writing it down may change it anyway, but if I couldn't have imagined it myself - ordinarily - and provoked a response then it fulfils my definition of art ("ordinarily" is key here). It would be interesting to see if anybody has their own thoughts on this, so please comment if you want.