Really hate that most people don’t understand the difference between “self-expression” and “artistic-expression.”
I say this as someone who sells pottery, and many people who see my art assume I am using art as an outlet to “express myself.”
I use art to challenge myself. A lot of what I do is the equivalent of doing a hard sudoko or a half marathon, answering the question of “can I do this?”
I use art to question things and explore ideas. Finding physical synthesis between concepts and working out a design to its end state.
I use art to make money. I make some things just because I suspect they’ll sell well, and I keep making them when they do.
This idea that an artist is “putting themselves out there” every time they create is not only stupid, but harmful, and it kills critique and analysis.
Yes every creative work is influenced by its creator, but the most preliminary step of analysis is to define the purpose of a work of art (functional, narrative, entertainment, persuasive, decorative, ceremonial, etc.) and a vanishingly small percentage of that is self-expression. Even then, it’s generally tied to the self’s relationship with something else—perception, society, etc.
It’s very tiresome to have people assume they know you because they like (or dislike) your art, to make assumptions about who you are and how you approach the world. It’s nothing new— people called the Impressionists insane and the Fauvists degenerate. And now people are expected to hand out their identities and traumas to prove they have the right to explore certain subjects.
But to actually understand art, you have to contextualize it beyond assuming it’s just what the artist felt like making at the moment and it’s somehow coming from their deepest soul, or you’ll badly misinterpret most art you come across.
