Generalizations on the Artist

Dictionaries describe an "artist," as one who makes his living by practising one of the fine arts, but they do not describe the make-up of the "creator" or what makes him create.

Van Gogh's paintings become clearer once you have some knowledge of his life, so with Lautrec. Picasso, and Modiglani. To understand art have a knowledge of the "artist" to really appreciate his work. If you look upon art physically without any translated sensation, you lack something—possibly the idea that someone can create something quite useless and yet have an intense liking and deep reason for creating it.

The "artist," is in most cases, a sensitive, highly imaginative person whose environment has been a strong factor in his life. A good example would be Picasso, in his "Blue Period"; when most of his works dealt with the poor and hungry.

The "artist," also has the ability to take any material and turn it into an expressive symbol of beauty or ugliness. The symbol he has created may, in the eyes of the critic, express a completely different feeling than that the "artist" felt, then either he has not completely understood the work, or the "artist" has failed to communicate.

The aim of the "artist" is to reveal through his eyes—art. No "artist" desires any more than recognition of his works; and through his works, himself.

Oscar Wilde once said, "All art is quite useless," but what of the "artist?"

—Meha.