Everything is subjective. EVERYTHING!
That's why only tolerance can be a healthy basis for living together in this world.
If you can't distinguish it from art, it IS art!
Art doesn't arise in the viewer's eye but against the background of his life experience.
Essentially not even critics can't be so overboast to decide what's art and what's not.
I myself judge art exceptionally for the aspect if it's touching me anyway or not.
This can be something ugly, repellant, disgusting, that really horrifies me. Also it can be something real beautiful that catches my sense for aesthetics with magic. Or something that tells a message in an unusual and surprising way.
I can't force anyone to what he has to recognise as art. Noone should try this. This decision is left to the viewer and noone else. Either a work touches him for any reason or not.
I always was 'moderate' in art educations at school. But one time I managed to delight my teacher in a way that she graded me 'A+' and gave me 5 D-Marks! I guess, I don't have to explain that this was more than just unusual. But this shows clearly that judgíng art is absolutely individual. Essentially, such things shouldn't be graded at school.
Essentially, noone should judge art at all. The viewers should just listen to their mind & soul and ask themselfes if this work tells them something special or not.
'Is there a message for me?'
If a work tells you something you should try to figure out what it is. Passion, lust, frustration, joy, aversion, disgust? What makes it interesting to you?
Ignore everything others say. Only what you feel is what counts.
Perfection should be reserved to the craftsmen – perhaps only to the machines. For me, art is no matter of perfection & skills but of ideas & feelings.
To create 'perfect art' is nearly impossible – if the definition is to meet everyones taste. Following my definitiion, especially this would be imperfect above all.
(And don't bring up the Mona Lisa or the Sunflowers now…)
art + money = prostitution?
Let's talk about money now. As the most artists I can't live from the arts. I'm living for them! To have an additional income from the arts seems attracting and desirable on the one hand. On the other hand this contains the danger to sacrifice my freedom to the commerce. Hm - okay, I allways did this! I was born in this system that is built on money. Without money, you are nothing, you can do barely nothing. That's why I close this topic with a nice wisdom from Cologne: 'Et kütt wie et kütt!' (What will be, will be.)
From an art historically view I would classify my art as a mixture of abstract expressionism and pop art. In real, I just do what I must do.
There are lots of things I want to tell the world. It's about war, peace, love, hate, religion, sway, poorness, hunger, envy, intolerance, and more. But I also create art without a special meaning or message. Works that solely live from their aestethics. I simply must create them – no, they make me create them. I just can't do anything against that – and I don't want to.
My favourite topics are living together peacefully on this planet though different religions, races (in fact, I don't believe in the concept of races!), cultures and sexual orientations. And: live, death, joy, sadness, sex, and more.
I'm a convinced prayer for tolerance and good sense.
It's not my goal that everyone likes my work. I want to find the people who like it – which way ever. I'm sure that even I can discover new aspects by the one or other feedback, and learn more about my work and myself.
Your feedback on my work doesn't have to be expressed in an intellectual sounding way. I also accept a simple 'I like it' or 'Nooo, not mine'. Of course, I'm always interested in the reasons, if they can be named.
Sometimes I think that today everything has been invented, every picture has been painted, every photography has been taken, and every thought has been thought yet. But I'm surprised again and again, which wonderful new ideas are created day by day. That makes me hope.
Many of my photographs and paintings are especially created to give joy to the people, to make them lough. Others should be shocking and make people think.
In which way ever, my art shall enrich people's life and thinking. If that works, I made a good job and can be satisfied. This is not connected to any financial background.
I try to make people feel. Positive or negative. I try to make people think. Less for thinking about something than thinking ahead. Sometimes I tell stories, sometimes I squeeze feelings into colours and forms. I try to entertain people and make them happy. Just to kick them into the stomach right after. And to rise them up again. To make it easier to smash their heads upon the table. And so on.
Don't believe anything of it. Or every single word!
One time, my work should attract, one time unleash feelings, one time send a message, and one time tell a story and stimulate the phantasy. (“Quitting”, “The Last Supper”)
Of course I want to shock if it's necessary and appropriate, but I also want to entertain, and this right to the border of – bad word? – amusement! And beyond...
Yes, there are some works, I want the people lough out loud!
Essentially, I'd like to keep all my paintings for myself, just to have the possibility to ask really every viewer for his or her feelings while wathching. Unfortunately my rooms are way too small, and I can't afford bigger ones at this time. So I have to sell my paintings to clear space for the new ones, which are pressing after.
I rigorously reject ethically questionable practices like killing animals just for art and not for food and clothes.
Artist is no part time job.
Everything I create is art. That doesn't mean that everything is recognized this way. I have chosen to ignore that.
Artistic freedom ends at the point, other feeling entities are hurt ore injured. Just exactly at the same point, where any other personal freedom ends, too.
But not before!
Especially the members of the species 'mankind' are enabled to utilise a safety mechanism that can prevent them from seeing unwanted content. It's called 'Just look the other way'. No exceptions!
If it was not all about money, might, and fame, there sureley were more good friends among artists and critics. But who would pay the critics then? Besides the arts, critisising others is not a job anyway. (Imagine this in the industry: 'Aaahm, Bob, I'm not really sure if the way you tightend this screwbrought out your very best. I mean, in a contextual environment...' *SMASH*)
I guess, artists and critics would hang out in pubs and discuss works in a more constructive way. But where should the money come from, we need for all this beer and wine?
Some of my art is surely a critic to art, too. Wasn't it a very one-sided view, just to ciritisise the 'society' without recognising to be a part of it?
Talking about art can destroy it, but also make it better. (Whatever this means)
Of course, every critic is free to expose his/her better version besides my work.
“The artist has blurted out of me like out of an overripe pimple.”
Of course I have studied the arts a long time. But in life instead at an university.
My ability as an artist arises from the wish to communicate without any borders. To say what must be said. To spread joy when possible and reasonable.
After long years of being suppressed by my 'down-to-earth-me' and the connected social conventions, I decided to free my maltreated artist's soul in the beginning of 2014. It literally exploded!
How I could handle this suppressment such a long time? Quite easy: Since the early 90s I earned my money with creative work. In the beginning just as a copywriter, later then as art director, musician, and photographer, too.
The advertising business worked very well as a valve for releasing my creative pressure. But it doesn't anymore. I have grown.
As I gave up my idea of studying german philology to become a better copywriter (which wouldn't have worked, as I know today) years before, I also take a pass on studying arts at an university. I decided that intentionally, based on my experience.
As a graduated scientist of german philology it would have taken me very much longer to write good, tight advertising copies than it took me without that 'handicap'. And I reckon, it would be the same with arts, where subjectivity is dominating even more. The goal in advertising is to express messages clearly, precise, and brief. That leads to fast, definite understanding. So as an artist, I also use this background knowledge to make my messages understood.
What I do with paint and canvas, I wouldn't implicitly call 'painting'. It much more compares to an obsessive fight.
An artist must do what he must do. That's no matter of free choice. Most times he's forced to it.
Sometimes when I'm listening to the news or watching them, I suddenly stand up and know what to do. Anything else is unimportant then.
Often I wish I had unlimited space and hands. Then I could make all my ideas come real.
Of course I have not. Maybe that's okay. I don't know.
Joseph Beuys said that artists are opportunistic assholes with an absolutely egocentric viewto the world. If that's a requirement, I am the anti-artist!
Okay, 'asshole' I can accept, that's depending...
Most people know me as a friendly, sociable man who's thinking about the problems of our time too much. Because I can.
Intelligent people often are distracted from just being happy by their deeper thoughts. But that doesn't mean that I'm unhappy.
If I have to tell something I tell it – independent of someone's listening or not. Some things simply have to been told. This is one of the reasons, you also find me on Twitter.
Weirdo: yes. Madman: yes. Because everyone who's living his dreams and make them come true is suspicious to the rest. That's fucking rubbish, I tell you!