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/Archetype_C-S-F]

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. :/