My Artist Statement

posted by Donal McGraith, July 30, 2019.

In my art I am always aiming for irritation. I want the viewer to doubt my competence as they should. I am not competent. Or I chose not to be. There is little difference. I make bad art and I embrace it. It is art because I say it is. If it is bad art it is not non-art, bad art is still art. In what way is it bad? It begs the question: what is good art? It is good art because I say so. There is no criteria to distinguish between bad and good art except price. If the art costs more then it is better art. It’s an objective fact. But it’s also a corrupt fact. The price of the art is based on neither any quantifiable aesthetic knowledge nor on any definition of what is good art.

The case of Van Gogh. Oh no not again. In his lifetime Van Gogh was a very bad artist. How do we know? For one thing he sold almost no paintings. Those he managed to sell were no doubt bought out of a sort of pity. And yet Van Gogh is held up as proof that somehow great art will eventually be found. How can we be sure? Is there an inventory of bad art from which we can make comparisons to try and discern why something is good or it sells or it is bad and it doesn’t?

So in my art I want the viewer to be uneasy. I want them to question my skill as an artist. They should see a lack of refinement. I haven’t bothered to colour inside the lines. Things aren’t quite right, somewhat sloppy, a little off, irritating. I make a mistake and I repeat it, but not enough to rationalize it. And I leave enough of it alone for it to be irritating. A mistake needs to niggle, standing out slightly and off-putting, annoying; otherwise it will allow the viewer to settle into a kind of knowing contentment that they indeed know what is good art. They also like to feel that it sits right, is in the right place, makes sense.

The grand gestures of abstract expressionism have a tidy self-satisfaction about them, even De Kooning. Perhaps it is the fact that repeating a gesture over and over can make it feel correct. For me there must be something annoying in art, that creates doubt and even perhaps a resolution that the piece is just bad. Of course this might make the viewer dismiss it out of hand. They will walk away and likely be annoyed. That is because I’ve put in a few cues about theory and little bits that make them realize I went to art school and know some of the buzz words.

There is something there that calls for outright dismissal but by doing so they have given rather too much importance to my minor effort. The work is not good enough to bear comment they feel, but in taking the time to put out the word, in case anyone slips into engagement that the piece is not worthy of, the aficionado cannot help but reply. In replying they elevate it to being worthy of comment.

Rejection is an important sign in art history. We talk about the artist being ahead of her time. In being ahead of her time the artist proves the future as the place where bad art goes to heaven. So the artist seeks rejection like a drug, dismissal, parody, snorting, spitting and most of all the knowing grin of an aficionado who with the sweep of his arm and cape rejects my art as amateur nonsense, the dabbling of a dilettante.