I had the idea for this article when a friend of mine showed me some artistic pictures she had taken. Photography is one of her hobbies, and in my opinion she does it quite good. Her pictures are thought provoking, suggesting interesting ideas and feelings. However, she told me that once she showed her pictures to a friend, who is a professional photographer and he only found in them mistakes, technical mistakes specifically. He didnt congratulate her about the messages of the pictures and the imagination involved.
I
guess he is one example of what I call the intolerance against art.
Or the inquisition against artists. These new wave of self proclaimed
judges of art pretend that every piece of artwork must be flawless.
That is not so important the message and the creation, but that it
has to be logical and precise. If not, according to them, the work
must not be seriously appreciated.
Everyone
has a definition of art. Mine is the ability to share emotions
through fictional pieces of work. And I also would add that the
technique involved creating can be imperfect, but to a certain point.
It should not interfere with the communication. For instance, a novel
can be written by an amateur and start with a powerful story that
makes readers very interested, but if the novel starts with too many
typos and blatant mistakes of grammar, then the reader might lose the
concentration and the communication becomes harder. But
this is an extreme case.
There
are many skilled photographers who shoots perfect pictures that dont
transmit any feeling, not even a message. And the truth is, knowledge
in photography is cheap. Anyone can study five years at a university
and take high quality photos...but they cant teach you there to spot
connections, contrasts and expose other ideas. Thats what separates a
true artist from the rest, the creative aspect.
In
the world of cinema, critics are constantly downgrading films that
lack good photography or dont have a very skilled editor. But people
often ignore them...because they dont really care about those
aspects....they want a story that make them feel happy, make them cry
or scared. We dont go to the cinema expecting a technical
masterpiece, we want something else. We dont pay attention to a
critic destroying a movie in his column, we pay more attention to a
friend who tells us that film was awesome. And we believe him because
we can feel that he got excited with that movie.
Richard
Rodrigez was an unknown director when he made the movie “El
mariachi” with a budget of seven thousand dollars, twenty years ago. The
movie unexpectedly became a huge hit. And of course, with a tiny budget like that
you cant make everything right. You can notice the shortcomings of
the film. But this action movie had many original aspects and great
directing. Today is like a cult movie. Then after Rodrigez became
famous, he got a huge budget from hollywoord producers and hollywood stars to star in the
sequel of The mariachi. I saw the second part, and despite that the
movie was technically much better than the original...the movie
failed. It lacked the magic of the first one. I guess the stardom and
many available resources made Robert Rodrigez lose its touch with
art.
Julio
Iglesias, the mega successful singer, is considered by many for not
having a great voice when he sings. They say its an average one. But
when he sings, he makes the audience, mostly females, be captured by
the romanticism of his songs. The reasons is the passion he feels
when he sings, plus the gestures he makes on stage. He is now old,
and a new wave of ballad singers have overshadowed him, but he still
has a base of fans. Im not sure if he has composed many songs, but he
is an example that the artist not only has to create, but he has to
be really passionate about his own work. An artist can create
interesing stories, paintings, songs....but if he is not happy with
his creation, its likely that the audience will feel like him.
I
sometimes wonder where it comes from so much intolerence against
mistakes of artists. It reminds me of the scandinavian culture, where
perfectionism is the norm...totally opposite of the latin culture,
where tolerance and forgiveness is usual. Any foreigner in
Latinamerica, or in Spain can try to speak spanish and we dont care
that much if he makes mistakes. But when a foreigner tries to speak
swedish or danish incorrectly....people can rudely ask him if he can
switch to English. Id like to ask them, what is more important, the
message of the speaker or the perfection of his new language? The
oral language can be another art...that skilled politicians and
religious leaders have used to their advantage. And we all know that
every type of art, being paintings, literature, music, etc have been
used with political and religious purposes.
So
I would say that all aspiring artists should not pay too much
attention to the critics. The artists should pay attention to his
inner drive and that his ideas are original. Sooner or later, the
audience will decide who is right, if the critic or the artist
itself. Thats how art will evolve through the future.
This
article for sure has mistakes that a native speaker can spot, since
English is not my mother language. But that is not going to stop me
to write in this language. What is relevant is if the message of
this article will reach my readers interest. I hope so!.
Gianni
