Beth’s post got me thinking about art again, and I’d like to explore, briefly, the connection between happiness and quality or depth of art. It was mentioned that artists rarely seem to be happy, and the more tortured they are, the greater or more intense their work is. But the more important question to ask is “Do we tend to view more serious artwork as ‘greater’ simply because it has more depth and intensity?” Are we trivializing ‘happy art’ just because we have decided that it cannot possibly be taken seriously? Isn’t there the possibility that artwork that is cheerful can also be deep? Happy art does not have to be superficial art. I think we view serious art as ‘greater’ because it affects us in a certain way emotionally. Perhaps we find the more negative feelings created more memorable than the lighter, more uplifting ones. But this shouldn’t affect the way we view art. Depressing artwork can be incredibly shallow. And who are we to say that one thing is ‘true art’ while another is not? A judgment we can make individually is whether art is ‘good’ or not, but even this is subjective. But we shouldn’t go so far as to deny its status as art altogether. If all bad art were proclaimed non-art, then what would we have left to compare with? I consider myself an artist, but I don’t claim to be a good one. There is a difference. I think perhaps classification as an ‘artist’ has more to do with what the individual is trying to achieve, rather than his or her final accomplishment.
Do you think this painting is ‘superficial’ just because it doesn’t seem emotionally charged?