« Painting is an art, and art as a whole is not a purposeless creation that flows into the void. It is a power whose purpose must be to develop and improve the human soul. ». Wassily Kandinsky
Is the artist at the service of decoration? of space and places?
You cannot prevent an individual from thinking about the work of art as he sees fit, at most you can only « educate him » to the way you perceive it. And, with a little time and luck, through hard work, you will undoubtedly succeed in getting some of them to open their eyes to a critical mind that will be able to question their own sensory interiorities and thus open a door to possibilities. Because that is indeed what « see » the possibilities and not to define the work.
For having had several opportunities to refuse to serve as « decoration » at events, I think there is a confusion between the meaning of the work, its value (apart from the financial question), and our interpretations. Often, we conceive as a truth what is only a personal interpretation subject to an experience which is just as much. Hearing oneself say « It goes well with the color of my sofa » is not easy, but you have to find the words to raise the debate and sometimes the person is offended by it. It is by taking the viewer to « see » the possibilities that can be used to develop the work, from its relative beauty to its reflective value. The more the work is thought of by the viewer, the less he will look at it as a decoration and the more he will consider it as a « Object » can be a vector of thoughts, analyses and reflections. This presupposes that we understand the notion of decoration in its value of beauty without any other object than to create something beautiful to see.
To answer objectively this question of the artist in the service of decoration, we should consider the place of the work in the spaces it occupies, and consequently of the art object in the place.
The value of the work as an object, in the field of its use as decoration, does not really depend on the artist. « in the service of »The artist, even if he is not « in the service of », nothing prevents his art once sold from being « to the services of » the one who uses it. Even though the law, through copyright and related rights, would allow a certain amount of oversight over this use. This would amount to no longer painting and instead monitoring the usufruct of one's work. A vicious circle that has no virtue as long as the parties do not respect each other...
The artist must be at the service of his art and cannot be at the service of anything, but this is just my opinion. His work can be used for many things over which he cannot always maintain control.
In reality, it is not the artist who is « in the service of » but the work once it has left the artist's field of control. It is very regrettable to have to admit that few means are implemented to guarantee the application of the laws which guarantee the integrity of the value of creation. However, many artists are « in the service of » for obvious security reasons of all kinds, not just financial ones. So it becomes difficult for other artists to have the value of their creations respected, given that these artists often « in the service of » are also institutionalized.Given the undeniable responsibility of the artist in the reception of his work through his desire to show, disseminate and sell his work, and to the extent that any object influences the living environment, he must conceive and take the measure of the power of the work of art to render the best service he can, to the world that receives his work. It is in this interaction that the work lives and, it seems to me that its place in the place depends on the relevance, even the impertinence of its author, to promote his thought, his vision, his aesthetics, his philosophy and his intention. The artist must today take his place in the dissemination of his work. He must appropriate the spaces provided by today's media tools, even create those of tomorrow that will serve to establish the reception of his work by the public in the extension of time that will survive him : by History.
In my opinion, the artist must be at the service of art in its dimension of elevating individuals.
Goodÿ – May 2020
