Is Mimesis All That Matters?
If you've ever been interested in Art or are an Art Professional, I'm sure you've heard some version of this sentiment over and over. "Wow, it's so life-like! This is the type of Art that needs to be in museums!", "These are just blobs of paint; anyone could do that, even I could do that!" and so on. Before studying Art History, it seemed like dumb, petty jealousy to me. People seem salty that individuals like Kandinsky, Rothko, Basquiat, Da Kooning, and the like achieved such levels of notoriety for creating this type of Art. I even hear this type of critique levied at artists like VanGogh, Picasso, Matisse, and Miro, to name a few.
After taking quite a few classes on literary analysis and then fully transitioning to Art History, I saw a few patterns emerging. I found it peculiar that people tended to view artists as ethereal, non-human entities. I felt that on an incredibly minor scale, being the only artistically-devoted individual in my family. I think this pervasive belief is at the root of these attitudes and perceptions, but I want to dive into the myth of the Artist in a different blog post. In this particular instance, though, I want to highlight one element of that concept. People don't view artists as people just like them. There's this idea that only a select group of individuals can be artists since they're a special breed of human. They view art as something that only that chosen group of people can create with increasing complexity levels. The average person doesn't view themselves as a potential artist, and I honestly think that's silly. Part of what makes the Art Vanguards of the 20th century so captivating to me is exploring what can be considered art and who can be an Artist. While some people within the industry have a very exclusionary view of Art, I think people like Marcel Duchamp and the like put Art in the people's hands. That democratized aspect speaks profoundly to me. I find that creating art for its own sake, even if it's not in a professional capacity, is cathartic and therapeutic.
What Causes These Perceptions?
Besides the implication of the Artist being a different, superior human, this attitude has a lot of eurocentrism and racism wrapped in it. I think that's a given at this point since racism and xenophobia have sadly shaped the world we live in. These comments place European Art from the 14th century until the early 19th century on a pedestal of immeasurable quality. In contrast, all others are a mockery and show that Art has been declining ever since. That's a very narrow view of European Art, not to even mentioning that it's wholly invisibilized Art from literally anywhere else. While I don't think that most individuals who say these remarks have any ill-intent, I do believe that it's part of social conditioning that makes us view any Art that isn't life-like and mimetic as primitive. That REALLY infuriates me! It makes Art History even less accessible and diverse, harkening back to what I spoke about in this blog post. I want to learn about Asian Art, African Art, and Art of the Americas as it is, not as pre-Colonial and post-Colonial.
These attitudes are very much ingrained into our social discourse about Art, so changing them won't happen quickly. If you ever find yourself saying these things, or hear someone saying it, ask yourself or them this:
Am I projecting my personal preferences in Art as a qualifier for what is and isn't Art?
Are my perceptions of artists born out of this myth that they are ethereal beings, capable of fooling our senses with their skills?
Do I have ingrained social beliefs that everything and anything that's from European origin is inherently better?
Answering these questions honestly allows us to begin deconstructing these concepts and working on the deeper-seated issues at play.
Final Thoughts
This blog post might lead you to believe that I have a deep-seated hatred for European Art, but that's far from the truth! I specialized in European Art because its aesthetic resonates most with my artistic sensibilities, but that doesn't mean I don't see the value in other art. I want to start a dialogue that helps create inclusive spaces where we can discuss art that covers the gamut of human experiences. Everyone benefits from learning each other's culture, allowing us to understand each other a bit better!
