Aim for the higher purpose!

In the book "Bruce Lee- The Art of Expressing the Human Body" (Tuttle Publishing), editor John Little writes, "... Lee's muscles were not built simply for the purpose of show, as were many bodybuilders'", and also "Muscles ...that comprised the physique of Bruce Lee are the result of training for a functional purpose".  This clarity and striving for the goal by Lee, is something that inspires me regarding being a graphic artist.  


As I've written earlier, in the world of today's digital art there is the tendency to strive for realism primarily, something which clearly demonstrates the technical skill of the artist, and also highlights the powerful capabilities of today's computers and software.  All too often I have experienced other artists geeking out over some technically brilliant artwork which says something more about the artist than the art (or its content) itself.  I suppose it happens, because for so long, computer generated art was hampered by limited memory and inadequate tools. But as Lee recognized the goal in combat, and streamlined himself to meet that goal via a comprehensive set of attributes (particularly strength, speed, endurance and flexibility), so too should we ask ourselves what is the meaning of art, and are we aiming for that.  Or are we just flexing our muscles?  (Actually Lee was fond of showing his physique per onlooker request, but obviously he subordinated a shallow showmanship to achieve a well rounded athleticism, and to become so effective at his art).  


I think that there are two goals in graphical art, one being the expressing of oneself (which requires little technical skill, as children are some of the most prolific artists around) and secondly, moving the viewer to some kind of emotion.  None of this requires eye-popping special effects. As artists we should condition ourselves, our mind and technique, to achieve these real goals.  We can do it with virtual stick figures and cartoons, as Jeff Kinney did so well in his "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" books. 


I guess this topic interests me because I personally tend to paint in a more realistic manner, not feeling comfortable doing non-representational art, even though much of my favorite work from other artists is abstract and is less than a mirror of reality.  


Recently, someone that I didn't know, told me that he liked my art and that he wished he had just a sliver of artistic talent, so I told him to just express himself, and that he can do that today.  Pretty big words I guess, coming from a guy with still so far to go.  :) 

There's room at this table

This is something of a unique painting, by the highly influential, Belgian Surrealist artist Rene Magritte (painted in 1928).  It's called "Man with a Newspaper", and speaks of the passage of time and our mortality in this world:

In a previous post from 3-4-2011, I hinted at the futility of a whole universe which was largely inaccessible to the humans dwelling within it. This painting recalls that impression for me, but also suggests the opposite, that physical people are not necessarily important in the big scheme.  Even objects manufactured by our own hand will persist in their existence, after we have vanished.  Perhaps the picture on the wall was painted by the very man reading his newspaper, left to decay and become indecipherable at an indeterminate rate, and yet assuredly outliving its creator.  Magritte's painting could also been seen as a violation to what martial artist Bruce Lee spoke about, in that man is inseparable from his world, and that one does not exist without the other.  That raises the question of whether the view being seen is that of an impassive object, or the sight of a conscious being.  One person can only cease to exist, if someone else is there to appreciate the fact.  And yet, a person is capable of life, even if solitude were the only likely existence.


Magritte's painting hangs at the Tate Gallery, in London. 

How to be real (really)

I appreciate what Linda Lee Cadwell wrote about her husband, in the book "Bruce Lee - Artist of Life" (by Tuttle Publishing).  She wrote that Bruce "refused the path of the image-makers and, instead, worked to expose and express his true self."


I'm reasonably sure that I've exposed myself before, but as an artist, have I expressed who I really am?

Bruce Lee, in Warner Bros.' "Enter the Dragon".

It's often been said that in order to create abstract or figurative art, or any type of art that contains "expression", that one must first learn to draw realistically.  But last night I was in an online forum, and someone pointed out, "Who starts by drawing realistically?  Most artists start drawing when they are three years old".  Indeed, if we draw a realistic image of a tree, we are expressing the nature of the tree, and not ourselves.  Essentially we've been taught that we must be marketable, must be respected by certain other persons of fine reputation, and that we must thus follow a predestined path towards becoming an artist.  Well, perhaps we should not strive to be artists, as people commonly define the term.  Bruce Lee shunned the traditional world of martial arts, and literally reinvented the fighting practice, according to his nature and need.  I think that we should strive to be so unique and expressive like that.  And if it matters, Bruce ended up doing rather well by himself financially in the process (or at least was about to, had he lived longer).  


Linda went on in her writing, "I feel confident that because Bruce chose the path of self-knowledge over accumulation of facts, and the path of self-expression over image enhancement, that he did reach his destiny with a peaceful mind."  Please refer back to this paragraph if you notice a dwindling accumulation of facts in this blog.  There's a reason for it.  :)