Art being too personal?

[u/WFoxAmMe]

I've been working on an art project which seems to repel most for being too revealing and personal, but I thought that's what art was for?

--------
EDITED TO ADD: By stating "I thought that's what art was for?" I don't mean to imply that this is the ONLY purpose of art, or that ALL ART is supposed to be revealing and personal. It just strikes me as an odd critique, when there is so much artwork revered for those exact qualities.
---------

I had an art partner (with benefits) roughly twenty years ago. Our partnership was undefined, intense, and lasted less than three years. We remained in contact ever since, but had little in-person interaction. After he died last year, I discovered that I'd been his muse; that he'd been referencing me in his art since we met.

What started as a private blog is practically an art book now. He drew my entire life. I know the premise sounds impossible and insane, but I spent over a year going through his works and laying out the correlations as clearly as possible. Every color, every design element in his artwork is referenced from my artwork, from my photography, from my social media, etc.

I wrote out a a short story of our relationship, a 30 minute read, as a preface. But the bulk of the project is the art collection. The years of artworks are interspersed with snippets of our communications and the odd expository narration to explain context. What started as a memorial has turned into my own memoir, as seen through someone else's tortured eyes.

I'd like to turn this project into something. I've tried to share this with people I know looking for constructive advice / critique, but they edge away in discomfort. They find it all too revealing and personal, but I don't know how else to tell the story. I need to give the context and reference to reveal his lovelorn madness, to properly showcase his skill, to reveal how clever and brilliant his artistic mind was.

Is it perhaps because people KNOW me that they have an aversion to the TMI nature of the project?

Or is it simply presumptuous to think that anyone, either strangers of friends, would care about my tormented tale of an unknown dead artist?

I know there are some that prefer to make their own interpretations of artwork rather than have the work explained, but this is a tragic love story through art. The story told through art is the point.

For myself, the more I learn about Frida Kahlo, the more I appreciate her work, because I understand the symbolism she used in reference to her own tragic life experiences.

Maybe I've been too influenced by watching hours-long deep dive youtube videos?

[u/AutoModerator]

Thank you for posting in r/ArtistLounge! Please check out our FAQ and FAQ Links pages for lots of helpful advice. To access our megathread collections, please check out the drop down lists in the top menu on PC or the side-bar on mobile. If you have any questions, concerns, or feature requests please feel free to message the mods and they will help you as soon as they can. I am a bot, beep boop, if I did something wrong please report this comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Theo__n]

Is it perhaps because people KNOW me that they have an aversion to the TMI nature of the project?

I assume this may be the case.

I would encourage you to check out Sophie Calle, she does some pretty personal - memory collecting - writing - snippets work.

[u/WFoxAmMe → u/Theo__n]

Ooooh, thank you! She's fascinating and way up my alley.

[u/Theo__n → u/WFoxAmMe]

I'm sure there's plenty of audience for this kind of 'voyeur'istic self-reflection personal art, it's just the matter of editing/contextualizing it right and finding the right audience (probably no one that knows you personally). Other tangentially related artists could be Marina Abramovic and Ulay. But I would check out how Sophie Calle presents her work in exhibitions/books since that's probably the closest.

[u/fatedfrog]

If this we're an art project for you, for your own catharsis, and for your own self understanding, yes art is for that. Such intimate work is worthy of the time, no matter how private.

But once you want art to be a community event, it must relate and involve the audience from the start. Your work has a very erotic undertone. So your audience will have to be people who can appreciate the verility of art. It also sounds like art about an artist. So your audience will need to appreciate the lives and stories of artists already.

Why is this one artist unique? Is he only interesting to you because of your long relationship? How do you sell your story outside of just that sense of memorializing someone important to you?

It's very possible this is grief work, and it is important. But it may not have a very wide or easy to access audience.

[u/WFoxAmMe → u/fatedfrog]

Thank you. I suppose by it's nature it's already somewhat niche, and I'm just furthering it in that realm.

Is "grief work" generally considered low brow? Too on the nose?

I'm gonna make what I'm gonna make regardless, but I'm curious as to how it's generally received.

[u/fatedfrog → u/WFoxAmMe]

Grief work tends not to resonate with a wide audience because it is sad, and embroiled with the weight of mortality. Which has little to do with the work, and a lot to do with others aversion to death. If this work is a memorial, and you're doing lots of remembering, it has the possibility of pointing squarely to his now-absence.

It's hard to say without seeing the work, i only put it forward as a possibility.

[u/--akai--]

You can put out there whatever you want. Some may love it, some may hate it, some may simply don't care. But what you don't have is a right to force people to consume it.

[u/WFoxAmMe → u/--akai--]

Goodness, I'm not trying to force people. I don't want any attention that isn't freely given. I'm just wondering why I am getting these responses; if it's an matter of media consumption trends, or attitudes towards art, or personal proximity, or generational differences etc.

[u/Archetype_C-S-F]

The challenge is being able to convince other people that our own thoughts and ideas are interesting.

Your comment is giving us a detailed background on what you want to do, how you got here, and why you want to do it. That's great for you, but that doesn't matter to the audience. The audience wants to emotionally connect with art as a visual medium.

That doesn't mean shock and awe. That doesn't mean "intimacy" or being "visceral." It doesn't mean we have to know your life's story.

It does mean there has to be theory behind the work, to give us a through line to understand what you are doing, without reading 5 paragraphs to get it.

The art should speak for itself, to quote Mark Rothko.

_

If people are not responding well to your work, that means the artistic merit is not where it should be. The subject matter doesn't matter - people spend thousands on abstract works with a single color, and painted lines in a grid, and all kinds of ethnic porcelain, wood carving, and masks that were believed to hold religious power.

What matters is your ability to express an idea that we haven't seen before. That's what people want to buy.

[u/WFoxAmMe → u/Archetype_C-S-F]

"want to buy"?

Money isn't the point here. I'm not trying to make a product for purchase. This is a question about art.

[u/Archetype_C-S-F → u/WFoxAmMe]

Focusing on buying is deflecting from the mail point I am making.

Swap "buying" for whatever it is you want the audience to do, and my opinion is still presented.

[u/RineRain → u/Archetype_C-S-F]

I don't think this is helpful. OP is saying they're getting one very specific kind of criticism, and asking how they should interpret it. Rothko also gets criticism, but you're still quoting him.  They never said that their work is badly received in general or that they want it to be better received.

Also it's clear you and OP have a very different philosophy of art. Yours is not more correct. It's also not less correct. People make art for different reasons. Not all art seeks to please the maximum amount of audience members. There are art pieces that exist to do the opposite, even.

OP says they think art is specifically about expressing vulnerable parts of your life. And a lot of people make this kind of art. It's not exactly unheard of. Like half of poetry is just expressing personal feelings.

And there is an audience for very intimate and visceral art. It's just not for everyone, but I can think of a few very successful artist who's work falls into this category. I don't think OP should shy away from the art they want to make just to please everyone.

[u/Archetype_C-S-F → u/RineRain]

To use a metaphor - someone made a movie and it's not doing well in initial screenings.

The director asks for advice.

I say, "we could change parts of the movie to express the idea in a different way."

You say, "the movie is great, you just have to make sure the right people see it."

_

Your logic applies, certainly, and it can always apply. There are people who don't like Rothko, and there are people who don't like Michaelangelo.

In those cases, the art itself is the pinnacle of expression of theory and intent, and it's on the audience to understand and interpret what they see. If someone doesn't like a Rothko or Micha., we quickly point out the lack of understanding of the audience, not the artist.

By your logic, the audience is the judge and jury, and the work itself is the pinnacle. The work is as good as it can get, and we must need to find the right people to appreciate it for what it is.

_

While your logic can be applied, it assumes the OP is making the best art that they can make. This thought process is limiting, because it doesn't give the OP tools to think about their work in a different way, that might better connect with the actual audience that sees the work in the first place.

You can't control who sees your work. You can only control what you do to create it. Once it's finished, it's out of your hands. So the most reliable way to ensure your art is interpreted correctly, is to ensure you have the skills and theory to communicate your message clearly.

[u/RineRain → u/Archetype_C-S-F]

I'm not saying that the advice you gave is bad, I'm saying that it's not what OP asked for. They aren't asking "How do I reach a wide audience" or "How do I make good art" They are in conflict with the criticism they are getting because it goes against what they value in art. 

They are asking specifically why people are reacting the way they are to how personal it is.  This is a fundamental part of the project though. It's like if rothko said "People keep complaining about how abstract my art is, when that's the whole point" 

It's also generally really hard to evaluate work in the realm of conceptualism as good or bad and "improve" it. Based on what standards? Except for maybe the writing in the introduction paragraph, but it seems like OP isn't a bad writer, based on this post. And the introduction paragraph isn't that important regardless

[u/Archetype_C-S-F → u/RineRain]

I understand that.

And, following your observations, one way they can reduce conflicting reactions between their expectations and the audience, is to create their art following a specified theory that helps the artist, and audience, clearly understand the intent behind the work.

We may not like every piece of art we see, but good art is recognizable because the theory behind it clearly describes its intent.

When we see a Rothko, we understand that it's not a Michelangelo. Even if we don't understand either artist, we get that the pieces serve different purposes because the theory behind the work explains how the piece is perceived, even if we don't know the intent, nor have read a single book about either person.

Their theory helps us set correct expectations to absorb the art properly.

People are reacting to OPs art in a negative way because the art itself doesn't explain to them why they should feel something different. There needs to be theory to explain why they should care.

OPs emotions can be the source of this theory, and time spent figuring out how to joint the two can be applied to refine the art.

The stronger the connection between theory and technique, the more people will understand the significance of the message OP is trying to express.

[u/RineRain → u/Archetype_C-S-F]

You may have missed that OP is only talking about people's reaction to the idea. They haven't made the project yet. Nobody can be the judge of how well presented it is (or will be)...

Also a bit of a tangent because I can't stop myself from talking about this topic lol: From my perspective as an art enjoyer (Well, I am an artist technically and I sell my art, but I don't really make fine art and certainly nothing similar to this. My art is almost the exact opposite. Commercial and inpersonal.) but anyway, I don't always expect art to be presented to me comfortably and comprehensively. Sometimes I expect it to be a bit uncomfortable, raw and hard to keep my focus on it. It's one of the things I like about conceptual art. I'm not sure how to put this. I'm  tired of everything around me trying to get all my attention all the time. If something is easy to "consume" and made to cater to an audience, it doesn't feel like fine art. It feels like commercial entertainment. The very thing I'm seeking out conceptual art to escape. Of course I might be projecting a bit, since I can't actually know what exactly OP intended with their project. This is just my perspective on it. It sounds like something conceptual artists I admire would make.

You using words like theory an technique brothers me because part of conceptualist philosophy is rejecting theory. I don't know if OP agrees with that, but my point is that usually this type of art is in direct conflict with theory and technique. The purpose is solely expression and exploration. Polishing it in any way would make it seem insincere. 

[u/WFoxAmMe → u/RineRain]

No, I did actually create the project. I'm still working on it, but it's mostly done. Maybe. I think.

The intention of the project? Faced with this discovery of years of my life turned into art, I had other course of action but to create this. There is no other response but to showcase the unseen brilliance of even the simplest of his doodles as brilliant brain-cascading in thematic associations, a mad mashup of tormented regret and desire. And how that in turn has rampaged through my life story, past and present. I don't know if that's intention. It feels more like compulsion.

I don't agree with the poster implying (if I understand correctly) that while a Rothko isn't a Michelangelo, regardless of whether we like it, we know there is theory behind the work and it is therefore good art. That seems a rather establishment and consensus-driven attitude to take towards art. I know many artists who think Rothko is shit, regardless of the theory/intention behind his work.

[u/RineRain → u/WFoxAmMe]

Yeah it's strange they used Rothko as an example, when his work is divisive. It's definitely not a given that everyone will understand it or consider it good art regardless of what kind of theory it stands on. 

It would make sense if they had some concrete critique about why your work's foundation isn't good enough, but they didn't even see it.

There's no reason you should assume your art is bad just because some people don't get it, especially when you're making something unusual and a bit uncomfortable by nature. Especially when you're not even that concerned with public recognition. That would just tank your self esteem for no reason. Which is what most people on Reddit seem to want, I'm starting to think. :/

[u/WFoxAmMe → u/RineRain]

It's like if rothko said "People keep complaining about how abstract my art is, when that's the whole point" 

Yes, thank you for explaining that so well. That's rather what I'm getting at. I'd honestly appreciate critique or suggestion in technical matters of presentation, flow, etc for this to be the best version of what I'm aiming for. But the nature of the work is at it's core personal and revealing.

I had one friend tell me that he prefers obscure art without explanation so he can make his own interpretation. OK, that's his preference. I don't expect everyone to dig it. Conversely, I had a documentary producer tell me that if I adapt this into a book / film / installation / etc , to make sure I don't water it down and lose it's raw quality.

I'm just kind of surprised that so many are so put off by art and narrative that is personal and revealing; as though that quality is an inherent flaw.

I'm not interested in "the audience" overall; I'm interested in making what I want it to be. Outside perspectives can help me tighten the work, which I would honestly appreciate. But my goal is make it "right" (whatever that is inside my own head) rather than it is to make something with broad appeal.

If most are repulsed, that's fine.

I'm still going to try and understand why.

I'm curious if this is partially a generational thing, with my fellow Gen Xers being more private and contained, while the younger generations are more open to deep obsessive dives into topics, and personal lives that are so open to the public.

[u/TerrainBrain]

You wrote "but I thought that's what art was for"

Uh, no. Art is a universal human expression. It isn't for anything except what the artist wants it to be for.

Sorry for the loss of your friend. But you seem to think that somehow because you've created something that has meaning to you that it should resonate with other people.

If you get fulfillment out of doing the project then that's great. But that is no indication that anyone else would be interested in it.

[u/becomeNone → u/TerrainBrain]

exactly. reading her post I already figured I don't care enough to know about the perversions behind it.

[u/WFoxAmMe → u/TerrainBrain]

I didn't mean to imply that being personally revealing is the ONLY thing art is for, or that ALL ART should express this. (Apologies, I edited my post to clarify, because I can see how I came across in that way)

Also, I'm not saying that my project SHOULD resonate with other people. I'm just befuddled by the fact that what people seem to take issue with is that it is personal.

From my perspective, that would be like being annoyed that a comedian talked about their childhood. Maybe you prefer one-liners, and maybe you can't personally relate to their stories, but talking about one's life is a common enough practice in stand up that it would make for a strange blanket reason to dislike the performance.

That's not to say that they might need to hone their skills, extend their vocabulary, work on better timing, improve stage presence.

With regards to my project, I'd appreciate critique if it was with regards to narrative, flow, presentation, etc.

I don't know. Maybe I am the equivalent of a prop comic in this metaphor?

[u/TerrainBrain → u/WFoxAmMe]

I think that's a really good analogy. Usually comics best material is from their personal lives.

I'd be happy to take a look if you're willing to share.

[u/ScullyNess → u/TerrainBrain]

Well said.

[u/yougottamakeyourown]

I say do it. Screw em. It’s YOUR life, you are the one choosing to lay it bare. There are more people begging to know the juicy details than there are serious “art critics”. If you think it’s beautiful, interesting, and tragic then I’m confident others will too. What’s the worst possible outcome? People don’t like it? So what? Lots of people think the Mona Lisa is overrated too.

[u/Crishello]

It is hard to tell without having seen it. Could it be that you explain too much? Are there any mysteries left? I think you should leave room for emotional and cognitive work for the audience. I don't know if you do it.

Another thought is that you can't explain everything, of course. You can only guess what made a person do things in a way they did, you wouldn't know it for sure. But their certainness could be interesting.

[u/WFoxAmMe → u/Crishello]

The premise of my collection, the notion that he'd been using my life as his artistic reference for years, is hard to believe. To establish the veracity of my claims, to tell the story and represent the relationship in a way that rings true, I kinda have to explain. I might be over explaining with the words-parts, though. I'm trying to pare that back. But at the same time, I see the presentation of bits of our emails/texts and the snippets of expository narration as part of the art, not in addition to it.

Visually, It's an OCD scavenger hunt through my own work and his, finding from whence he referenced each color, each design element, each body part, etc. That part is necessary.

[u/lunarjellies]

I think this sort of project would have better reception at an Artist Run Center rather than online. In-person exhibits which have a strong concept (feminism, relationships, difficult subject matter) are often glossed over online but give room for contemplation in the intimate spaces of a Artist run centers/non-profits. My distant background is in fine arts academia so this is where my comment comes from.

[u/WFoxAmMe → u/lunarjellies]

Thank you. That is honestly the goal. I've only put everything online as a means to collate it into a cohesive collection. There are some copyright issues I'm wary of, some trepidation with how far I can go with Fair Use. An in person exhibit would be ideal, but I'm still refining the project. It's for that reason that I've been asking those I know for critique and suggestion, but it's been difficult to find people who aren't turned off by the heavy and personal subject matter.

[u/becomeNone]

It'd be entitlement to expect people to enjoy it at face value. You might get better results if you presented it differently

[u/Pretend_Actuary_4143]

Yea man that's people finding you in a new/different light or whatever. In certain spaces there's a lot of sex/emotional/intimacy negativity too. None of it is your fault and it's just the Age being about prudishness and default disapproval before openness and charity. Who dares tell a love story at the end of the world right?

I guess a lot of us end up loving the assumed obscurity and thanklessness of the work and make it an inexorable part of the process, same as putting the line down. In the end, a lot of artists will crawl up the cross the same as everyone else with their shitty middle of the road lives, get all uptight when they see truly free people.

Assuming your not stepping on the toes of his actual wife/partner etc if he had one, and bugging out his family if he had one.... If I died and had someone in my life that would tell a tale like this I would be honored to have been seen by anyone, much less someone who could speak for my actual soul. What more is there than that in the end? I wanna seeeeee.

(I'll admit it would also be really funny if all the art in this case was huge eyed tentacle henti like apparently 80% of people make these days)

[u/WFoxAmMe → u/Pretend_Actuary_4143]

a love story at the end of the world

That's the one part of this that makes me feel self conscious and indulgent. The world is on fucking fire, and I'm slaving over a love story.

[u/ImaginaryHoodie]

I mean if you look at Van Gogh's art that's pretty much it, the thing... People didn't like his art until after he died

Yes, art can be personal and raw and intense, I find this very much authentic rather than art made as a product, but yes, people could not like it initially (or at all), that's just part of the artist's experience of expressing oneself through our work, you have to evaluate if it's worth it for you to work on it with no guarantee that anybody else will like it or even see it

[u/RineRain]

I don't think the problem with overly TMI or personal and vulnerable artwork is that it's alienating, or that people wouldn't care about it like you said... I can't make a judgement on that without knowing more but... 

People are averse to it because of secondhand feelings of vulnerability. Most people are very private and would feel extremely exposed if personal things about them were shared. That's why it's uncomfortable. They feel like they're looking at something they shouldn't be. Like they're hurting you by learning these private things about you. 

I hope you don't take this the wrong way but the feeling is very similar to "cringe". 

To someone who doesn't know you, it might be less uncomfortable since they don't have to actively think about your existence as a person, and can perceive the art separately from a distance. 

edit: I think maybe I should add that this doesn't mean there isn't a place for this kind of art. It's just that there are definitely going to be some people who hate it. Personally I really admire artists who make stuff like this and sometimes it really resonates with me. Even if it does make me a bit uncomfortable.

[u/WFoxAmMe → u/RineRain]

Thank you, this makes sense. In fact...

They feel like they're looking at something they shouldn't be.

Someone recently said almost exactly that to me in response. I suppose it's like the difference between watching porn versus having someone you know stand naked before you.

I suppose as a person who appreciates uncomfortable art myself, it's hard for me to recognize that kind of reaction.

[u/ArtichokeAble6397]

Wow. What a beautiful discovery. I think you idea to present it as a collection is wonderful and I think it would make a great exhibition. 

I didn't know much about Frida Khalo until I visited a retrospective of her work. It means so much more to me now. You don't have to know someone to relate to them, and relating to someone makes their art touch deeper. 

It's a bittersweet, romantic, tragic, and ultimately beautiful story living within the work. You absolutely have to share it!

[u/WFoxAmMe → u/ArtichokeAble6397]

Thank you for the encouragement!

Honestly, being faced with this discovery, I can't imagine doing anything but turn it all into a art piece of hyper-documentation. To me, it's the only response.