If most visual
Artists weren’t who they were –
Would their art still be –
Perceived in much of the same way –
As it is perceived today?
Copyright by Minh Tan on listed dated of completion.
Notes to this poem…
It’d be hard to prove, or even argue, for a definitive answer to this question. However, there’s always belief. To that end, there’s no doubt in my mind, heart, gut or whatever. The answer is a definitive and clear NO. A real artist’s art is a manifestation of themselves in some way, as opposed to a commercial or wanna be artist doing art more because they thought it would be popular and/or sell, rather than art they want to do. One can do both, as it’s quite fine to think or hope the art you want to do will be loved by people. but it’d still have to be more of the latter first before the former if an artist were to produce authentic art that people would ultimately sense.
If an artist’s art is a manifestation of himself or herself then, if they had been different, their art would be perceived differently. Just try and imagine someone else producing some art out there. There’d be few whose art would stand alone as well as they are currently perceived just on raw skill. Even then, to reduce those masterpieces to just raw skill would be an insult to the artist.
On that general argument is why I believe if the artist had been someone else rather different than who they were, their art would be perceived rather differently as well. It’s a belief, not a fact or logical argument, but it’s one strong enough to me that, for me, it might as well be fact or logical argument.
The F-series poems are part of a collection composed on my ferry rides across Halifax Harbour when the buses aren’t crossing the MacDonald bridge due to the Big Lift bridge redecking. This should keep happening until at least December 2016.