I read this post on the relationship between creating artworks and the Internet yesterday and found it quite insightful. I paste the link here so that I can refer to it later.
Mihai, the author, stated this.
This has nothing to do with others having to validate your art. Or having to like it. The matter of fact is that art doesn’t have to be pretty, doesn’t have to be understood by everyone. But if has to be shared, it has to be viewed, listened to, or read.
I wholeheartedly agree with art being shared and that the Internet has erased borders for sharing. I also believe whatever your artwork looks like, there exist people out there who can feel it. As experience has shown, sometimes the ones you have never met can read your artwork better than your family.
Furthermore, in my opinion, art is a means of conveying your ideals and concepts. Ideals and concepts then need discussing. It does not matter whether they are right or wrong. If you do not share it (and willingly accept comments/criticism), despite the values it holds the artwork can never get them across to viewers/readers, which is equal to failing its own function. In short, art of any form needs to be shared to fulfill its purpose of expressing its artists’ inner universe.
However, I have a different thought on “art doesn’t have to be pretty”. For me, pretty is an ambiguous and personally conceptional word and should not be used as a measurement. Everyone has his own standard of what is pretty and what is not; the standard even changes over time. Therefore, if I could I would rewrite the statement as follow:
Art does not have to fit everyone
To end this post, and to practice the sharing of art, here I attach this painting I made last fall. The painting, in oil pastel, depicts the path I walked to work then with beautifully colored trees lining up on both sides.