I
spent a good portion of the 1990s justifying my work as an artist,
especially as a painter, to myself. It was a moral dilemma; a
question of validity and purpose. How can I indulge something with
such intangible meaning and value? Once I finally acknowledged the
value of making art, it became one of the few absolutes in my life. Afterward, I
rarely questioned the value/virtue in making paintings, even as
cultural dictates changed. Human existence matters and so making art
matters.
The
continuation of human existence is quickly becoming less of a given.
The most recent climate measurements and projections are dire beyond
belief. And the worst-case scenarios are looking less and less
speculative.
Making
art is once again a dilemma. A Dr. Zhivago-like engagement in
painting seems ridiculous in the face of world-wide environmental
calamity. I won't make environmental art, because that's rarely an
effective vehicle for change. And while making non-purposed art is no longer a
personal moral uncertainty, it's impossible to do so without making some acknowledgment of broader concerns. All I really know is to acknowledge
the situation.
While
Rome Burns - I think
I've used this post title before. I know it's in a notebook
somewhere. I may begin adding an “acknowledgment” of these
broader concerns to my paintings - a narrative or emblematic aside
that sidecars the primary subject. Artist Randy Wyatt had his “Yellow
Man” that appeared in most of his paintings. I want to make a
Lane Marker scene, with a sustainable garden silhouette in the distance. Or a Shelter House image
with a distant indication of a burnt forest. How would these quietly
suggested addenda read in the painting? And in the broader sense?
Can I do it without pandering, and does that even matter? It's an acknowledgement that does not solve anything. Again, it's all
I really know to do.
