I want to SEEEEEEEE

I have realised there has been something marvellously misguided in my contact with the outer world. I forgive myself readily, though. It may seem so evident in words, but if you don’t know it by INSTINCT, diluting your meaning is too easy. It has to do with being an active participant in art and humanity and it has to do with letting nature, speak for itself.

Let’s take photography. I have been trying to learn to take better photos, in content and style. By content, I mean, well, meaning. Style is the way I choose to express that meaning, and in learning the technicalities of this form, I have felt, has held me back. I have been impatient. Anyway, photography is one of my interests, but until today I would never be so bold to say I was a photographer or an artist. A friend sent me a photo of two women coming out from the sea, fully clothed, hands full of sandals and fruit, like they were coming for a day-trip to planet earth from planet sea.

When I looked a bit deeper into my reaction though, I noticed there was something holding me back in claiming it was a great photo. It has been taken on a cheap, failing camera and, well, my friend had not had an idea that she wanted to share, she just captured what was there, in those women, at that moment. It was more beautiful than any photo I have ever taken. Yet, completely subconsciously, I had made a competitive weigh-up of the value of the feeling and content of the picture versus the value of the effort, 'skill' or intention of the photographer.

Here is the question then, does our concern over whether the artist intended that to be so, inhibit our appreciation of what is shown to us? Just as with people and language? Are we letting our OWN egos in the way of our appreciation of the world? I have paid money to see this art, the person better have put in some effort to show ME things? Or I am exerting myself, the other, better have done their share? Do we become passive receivers, therefore, no longer participants in the content?

Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder, but are we sidetracked by the artist? The teacher, not the teachings? The individual ego, not the universal?

This question has gone around and around in my head since meeting an Australian Sculptor who sculpted in stone. Sculpting in stone, isn’t quite accurate, though. I would say he sculpted OUT of stone, or even, that the stone sculpted itself. This, I think is beautiful. Allowing something to shape itself and be as beautiful as it is. My scepticism here, was, well, when you do that, though, how much of an artist IS someone? You could just pick up a rock and say it is beautiful, look, and, that is art? People will then pay you $1000 to see it.

I have begun to wonder, then, is it money that intrudes on my fundamental understanding of art? Because I do believe that the way Jeffrey expresses himself (the stone sculptor), to be from the inside out. The stone and him act simultaneously and complimentarily. He is not imposing and forcing his view on the stone. He is polishing and recognising nature’s inherent beauty, to remind us of what is there, already. For me, art is about showing something to people that perhaps they haven’t seen. It is giving them a chance to see things from a different angle, yet it is fundamentally about simplicity - unveiling what is already there.

I think you have to be very brave to take your ego out of it, and let a stone, or a photo, or a piece of writing speak for itself without leaving your mark of distinction, to show, somehow, the value to the anticipated receiver of the work, and to yourself, of your years of development; to give you the right, to go back to literally 'capture' an audience and let you speak again. A lot of things I have read about becoming an artist claim you need your fair portion of ego to drive and motivate you as an artist. Maybe they mean, to get hung in the tate gallery or to semi-officially label yourself ‘artist’ without accusations of fraud.

The photo I just received from my friend (and now, after thinking on all this, I really HAVE received it..) was the best piece of art I have seen in a long time because I let it be. So, the crucial element of art, for me, is in the receiver. It being in the eye of the beholder has become such a cliché that the meaning needs shaking free again, or changed, even. It is in the heart of the beholder. The honest, open heart. Like with people, we set out to criticise art, not receive.

For a visitor at the Tate, yes, the artist is likely to have done some conscious hard work.. to have shared a message, inspired an expectant audience, to have surprised and circumnavigated or excited their own defences, before they could do the same for their audience.

I wonder, though, if we could consider that it should be the receiver who needs to do the real work? To suspend judgement, ego and pride, and just receive what’s there. Then the magic can really begin. The trouble with this, though, is that then artists couldn’t hold their titles exclusively. Art would be free and everywhere. The word artist, would become universal, and so, otiose. It doesn’t quite fit in our illusory world of exchange. But, that is a problem for that world, not me. It shouldn’t mean I let go of my responsibility to read ‘art’ honestly, and let what is, do the talking.