In or Out
I
have always despised the way institutions create limited definitions of art in
order to classify what they think it should be exhibited in a museum. They have
the strong power of popularizing, and in some way, “canonizing” art, and
therefore, artists. I think that art and artists should not be placed in boxes,
and or depreciated due to his/her artistic formation. I don’t share the idea
that academy is highly necessary in order to become an artist. I do think that
it is important to have at least a certain level of academy, but it is not
obligatory. Although academies help to train and transform physically and
mentally the artist, they do not make an artist. Only self consistency,
interest, and every day practice can create an artist. That is why I do not
consider outsider artists as “outsiders”. Outsider is just another limited and
expired definition that institutions have invented to maintain their control
over art.
One
artist that comes to my mind, whose works were luckily institutionalized, is Jean-Michel
Basquiat. As we know, he never went to an art school, and barely finished high
school. He was a hundred percent self taught artist that today we study in
modern art history. Isn’t this ironic? Although he had the opportunity of being
accepted by institutions, there are many other artists that have not, and
remain in the darkness. I think that an artist is not defined for the academic
training skills, but for the sensibility of creation and communication through
art.
No comments:
Post a Comment