A Question from a Student.

To be considered an artist does every piece of work have to contain some deep alter meaning, or could you not just to paint, draw or create just for the love of it, and by the way you feel. Also is it possible that some of the great artist did just this and had no other meaning behind their work?

Absolutely - there is really no prerequisite that art have some great, hidden meaning. One of my personal favorite painters is John Singer Sergeant - who was primarily a portraitist and a watercolorist. His work (while uniquely stylized to some extant) was mostly a skilled, painterly rendition of optical reality.

It is important to remember our place in art history - We live in a period that follows a great deal of radical shake-ups of art theory. For much of the past art served very specific functions - recording of history, decorating great architecture, illustrating a story, creating a tangible connection to "spiritual" forms, etc. By the time that we get to the modern age, much of the functions of art were no longer necessary. The recording of events or people could be done with a camera, for example.

Artists were now free to question long held beliefs about the arts and their functions. The importance of technical skill began to be replaced with a focus on philosophy and deeper meaning, which is why this has been the main focus of art criticism over the past several decades.

But this in no way means that all artists must work in this manner. In fact, a quick glance through most galleries would show that many artists today still focus primarily on creating beautiful imagery within their own styles - without expressing any deeper psychological or philosophical agenda.

But it is a little more complex than all that. Remember that art is reliant on our perception of it to give it any significance. Much of the deeper context that we identify in art comes from our own interpretation of it.

The making of art and viewing of art are both complicated processes. Imagine that you are looking at a painting - to you it seems compact and fully realized - but remember that artwork evolved over an extended period. The artist may have had a final goal in mind, but she had to work a process in order for that image to become realized. Different thoughts went through her head - different songs played on the radio. The final piece is more than just the sum of its parts, if you will.

Also you have take into account what you , as the viewer bring to the experience.

Let us imagine that a group of us went to view a painting by Raphael that depicts the resurrection of Jesus. If some of the group happen to be religious they might focus on the image as a manifestation of their personal belief system - the subject might have a deep and profound meaning to them. Whereas others, who have no personal connection to the subject depicted, would focus more on the elegance of skill and the historical importance of the piece.

The painting itself has not changed (beyond the molecular level), and one could argue that Raphael had intended for the religious interpretation to take precedence over style - but that does not negate the validity of the other interpretation.

Please note that I am not saying that ALL interpretations are equally valid as some people can really go off the deep end. However, the one thing that seems to separate "art" from "illustration" is that there is a complexity, an ambiguity to art that encourages a little intellectual and emotional give-and-take with a viewer. As you grow in knowledge and experience, you find that good art will take on different forms of significance.

And that is why it is so much fun.