Once upon a time, long ago, before the dawn of the "modern" age, art was created for totally different purposes. You can debate me about when this so called "modern" age is supposed to have begun and your view might be right. There is much dispute about this but most experts agree "modernity" at least in the "West," began sometime in the 16th century and i tend to agree. The reason i'm honing in on this period of time is that for me it's a dividing point between the "Medieval" period and the "Renaissance" where new thinking about systems of knowledge began to shift from the shadows into the open. Gradually, a rediscovery of classical Greek knowledge began to proliferate and then infiltrate the dominant Catholic sacred knowledge system which had been used to imprison and control populations through "fear" and "ignorance." It is in this period of "Enlightenment" between 1400 and 1800 that massive changes occur and the explosion of knowledge begins to shake "traditional" European societies to the core.
The Better Path Okay, this period of upheaval is where art is essentially liberated step by step from its servitude to religion and its hierarchy of control. Prior to the modern age, art could only be created by the "clergy" and this strictly for the purpose of religious instruction of the "ignorant faithful." Pictures, (think here "Ikons") and statues were often fashioned by monks as objects of "veneration" used to deflect the faith of the poor and uneducated away from direct, personal relationship with "God" and instead to an intermediary object or relic that had been invested through endless indoctrination with great authority. These "idols" masqueraded as portals to the "Divine" and deviously concealed the understanding that " all men are individuals free to worship or not, as they see fit." As the "Roman Catholic" church began to lose its autocratic power to competing systems of truth, eg. philosophy, science and christianity, art and its manufacture were gradually freed from religious control and began to find expression in the secular realm.
Art had to wait a long time for its freedom though. During the middle ages artists were bound to observe strict conventions for object creation. Today we can look back and study the history of art made during this long period. Not much changed for many centuries. Suddenly, following the "renaissance" explosion in Italy, there was a creative groundswell as artists and craftsmen from all over Europe began to learn from each other innovating and experimenting with new ideas in pictorial and spatial conventions. Also, the move away from agriculture toward urban centres of education and manufacturing accelerated the wave of artistic innovation and the wealth created from trade financed artists and centres of art production. Not all artists enjoyed the support of the wealthy and for the majority, making a living from art proved to be tough going unless you had connections. This is the period where the "myth" of the genius artist starving in his garret arose and still makes the rounds today in the minds of many.
Having set the background for art and its production in the modern epoch, we now posit the question, is art a "career" or "vocation?" and what is the difference? you may ask. Well, career is defined as, "a work path leading to opportunities for progress" and comes from the Latin root "carrus" meaning, "wheeled vehicle." Vocation on the other hand comes from the Latin root "vocare" meaning, "to call" and denotes a "worthy" occupation requiring "considerable" dedication to an "ideal". If the difference isn't clear to you then let me clarify. "Career" is a term used to define a contemporary mode of employment, the goal being financial remuneration, eventual promotion and then retirement. "Vocation" defines a life coterminous with a calling (vision) where financial remuneration and the idea of retirement are not contingent to the "calling." When this is understood, it is easier to separate the "careerist" from the "visionary" who works out of "internal exigency" not "external opportunism and remuneration."
Simply, there are artists who make art for money and there are those who make art because they are compelled to do so by an inner urge or vision and sometimes there's a fine line between both groups. Finance and maybe status are sought by the first group as the marker for success. The realisation in concrete form of a personal compulsion/desire to "make" is the foremost concern of the second group. Financial reward and status are low on the priority list, although not necessarily disdained, nevertheless, often this group have indeed "suffered for their art."
It should be understood here that i'm not advocating some form of "ascetic" existence for artists where hardship should be sought and embraced. I'm also not advocating systems of support for inept, wannabe individuals ready to ride on the coat tails of philanthropic handouts from a private or public purse. Quite simply, great art takes time, sometimes decades and before it's ready to appear many artists are often derailed simply by the pressure of working to survive. You know the rest of the story, history is replete with examples of lost or wasted talent! Who knows what could have been? In fact, we're lucky we have what we have after all the barbaric onslaughts that have destroyed so much.
It should be understood here that i'm not advocating some form of "ascetic" existence for artists where hardship should be sought and embraced. I'm also not advocating systems of support for inept, wannabe individuals ready to ride on the coat tails of philanthropic handouts from a private or public purse. Quite simply, great art takes time, sometimes decades and before it's ready to appear many artists are often derailed simply by the pressure of working to survive. You know the rest of the story, history is replete with examples of lost or wasted talent! Who knows what could have been? In fact, we're lucky we have what we have after all the barbaric onslaughts that have destroyed so much.
In light of all this, artists today have a responsibility to be "visionary" making art that arrests the downward spiral i believe we are in. Making art that deals with "trifles" like jokes, puns and the banality of low-brow culture debases life instead of enriching it with higher purpose. I'm not moralising here, just calling for a return to poetry, to art that challenges who we are and how we see and maybe even inspires hope, faith and greater art than before. Artists should reconsider their "careers" to pursue "vision" and if they can't find one then my advice is to down tools and spend some time "in the desert" until they get clear of "money" (the market) and see the art "imperative."
Postmodern and in particular, conceptual art have accorded high value to "game playing" in contemporary art but in truth art isn't about "games," momentary distractions or amusement for bored spectators. This viewpoint has done enormous damage to the understanding of art-making as the highest form of human endeavour and produced a commercial system where art and entertainment are hopelessly entangled and packaged as mere commodities. To denigrate the art making function in this way is just another indication of where we are as a profligate culture placing first emphasis on inane pleasure and banal activity (making money) rather than philosophical enquiry and inner growth.
Here are some proven "vocational" artists for whom it is now possible to look back and see their achievements in totality, as "visionary" due to their impact on successive generations of artists and culture. My list of examples isn't exclusive but is a demonstration of what artists "do," regardless of fleeting fame or fortune. Twelve artists that i believe were not careerists are, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo Caravaggio, Domenikos Theotokopoulos (El Greco), Rembrandt Van Rijn, Francisco De Goya, Vincent Van Gogh, Paul Gauguin, Claude Monet, Henri Matisse, Wassily Kandinsky, Pablo Picasso and Andy Warhol. I have chosen mostly painters here simply because painting occupies much of Western art historical development. Some of these artists died young, some experienced minor success then rejection, some achieved great success, honour and then ignominy while some died rich and or famous. Whatever judgement call you make, artists like this changed the world in a way that's hard to fathom and often in the face of incredible difficulty. They had "integrity of vision" and pursued a passionate "calling" or "ideal" first, not "money!" They left behind an art that continues to challenge, astound and inspire us!
Maybe, at this point, you're ready to take me to task over Andy Warhol's supposedly famous obsession with celebrity and money as reason enough to disqualify him. Yes, Andy worked the ropes publicly and we have the photographic legacy to prove that. Yet, behind the scenes he was an incredibly hard worker always looking for ways to innovate his art. Andy understood the power of celebrity having grown up as an outsider and used it to leverage his chance of success but he never forgot that it was art that had taken him to the heights of success. His need to create was always the driving force in his life and he was able to surround himself with talented individuals that contributed or facilitated new ideas. Love him or hate him his art legacy is enormous both in the work produced and his profound influence on generations of artists and he is applauded for instituting almost singlehandedly a new 20th century art paradigm.
Maybe, at this point, you're ready to take me to task over Andy Warhol's supposedly famous obsession with celebrity and money as reason enough to disqualify him. Yes, Andy worked the ropes publicly and we have the photographic legacy to prove that. Yet, behind the scenes he was an incredibly hard worker always looking for ways to innovate his art. Andy understood the power of celebrity having grown up as an outsider and used it to leverage his chance of success but he never forgot that it was art that had taken him to the heights of success. His need to create was always the driving force in his life and he was able to surround himself with talented individuals that contributed or facilitated new ideas. Love him or hate him his art legacy is enormous both in the work produced and his profound influence on generations of artists and he is applauded for instituting almost singlehandedly a new 20th century art paradigm.
I'm inspired greatly by "timeless art" created by artists who make art as an essential priority in their lives no matter what is happening to them. That takes grit!!! It's often during the malaise/hurdle that significant art is birthed and history can testify to this.
