|Photo Courtesy of Microsoft, Corp.|
The point I’m making is, just because you (personally) like or dislike a piece of artwork, in whatever form and for whatever reason, does not mean others will necessarily agree. And if you and they don’t agree, so what?
Art is, by nature, personal in my opinion—personal to the artist who creates it as well as personal to the viewer (beholder). If the artist and viewer are in sync, more the better.
However, my “beauty” as a viewer is strictly that—my “beauty”--and no one else’s. Even if two viewers agree that a piece of art is beautiful (or thought-provoking, or awe-inspiring, or horrible, etc.) that doesn’t necessarily mean they are the same “beauty.”
Here’s what I wonder about. Why do some artists, and especially some artwork, achieve (somehow) celebrity status? What or where is that tipping point that captures the interest or imagination of enough viewers so that the art and/or artist achieve celebrity status and/or the noble cause of collectivity?
By whatever means, it’s not always talent in technique and rendering; it can just as easily be because it’s unique or avant garde or visionary or unique or notorious or just plain oddball.
In addition, and as an artist, I try to see all possibilities in pieces of art, giving them the benefit of the doubt, even when I question their “beauty” and their appropriateness to whatever the artist was trying to achieve (as if I knew).
A benefit of the doubt is a powerful thing and should be wielded more broadly with much more intensity. Every artist deserves the courtesy of an open mind.