All art is valid

Here's a blog post that was very hard to write because I want to be sure that I get my point across well. Forgive me if I end up rambling.

Until 2007, I was a complete stranger to the arts community. Then I took my first acting class, joined an improv company as a volunteer, took more classes, and assisted in some classes. Suddenly, I am surrounded by artists.

The thing about classes and workshops is that everything is being critiqued. It's nothing personal of course, the teacher is just trying to explain why what you're doing may not give you a satisfactory result and is trying to show you alternatives. But it's easy to think that the critiquing is part of the process, and it is, witness that performers often stay behind after a performance for 'notes', where the director or someone in charge tells everyone what could have been better, or options to consider. When I was attending improvisation classes and performances, I'd stay and listen to the notes given after class or show and try to learn from what was offered. It didn't escape my notice by the way, that improv could be done 'better' and I did find that amusing if not intriguing. 

But I began to wonder what the performers thought of the critique. How did it affect them? Did they just take notes for what they were, one person's interpretation of how art could be done differently to make it better in some way. Are performers left with the impression that their work is never good enough? If you've never attended a notes session, you might not truly appreciate what I'm saying, but the way that the critique is levied on the performers can, depending on the person giving the notes, be brutal. It's not touchy-feely in many cases, and I've heard of situations where the person giving the notes can be utterly rude and insensitive. That has to do something against the psyche of the performer.

The more I thought about, the more I realized that it's not just live performance art either. Artists who create paintings, sculpture, photographs, mixed media, etc. are mercilessly critiqued on their content. The more I listened to or read about the way art is judged, quite often by people who seem to have a lot of experience with the thing they were critiquing, the more I came to a personal realization.

Art is the product of the creator or performer. It is a product affected by personality, talent, emotional state, physiological state, the artist's experiences, surroundings, beliefs and so much more. And every single result is valid to the artist. It may not mean anything to you, or it may not measure up to your expectations or standards, but it may be just right to the only person that matters. The creator of the art. That's the epiphany I had. Art is always true to the artist. The only question is whether you connect with it or not. And if not, it doesn't diminish the value or importance of the art.

This is the nature of artistic expression that I think is lost on much of modern society. Just because you don't like a piece of art, or a performance, doesn't mean it doesn't have value. I mean, we intrinsically know this about certain types of art, I would hope. Just because I'm not a fan of opera doesn't mean that opera isn't good. I just don't connect with it.

I would hope that most artists already know this. Because if they didn't, they might have given up a long time ago. No, the reason I feel the need to say this at all is for the up and coming artist. In a culture where you're going to be bombarded with what's wrong with your art, you should always remember that it's yours, it has value and sooner or later, people are going to connect with it. And that's all that matters.