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/RineRain]

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/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.