The only time I feel alive is when I’m painting
I have had passionate feelings about art for as long as I remember; and maybe I am not as ‘experienced’ in considering it as others – or even academically or professionally certified to do so.
But lets make something clear; art was never meant to be a thing of commercial consumption. Art is the universal language; it is the telling of a story or a pain where words fail.
In this article Jones actually mentions Picasso – albeit, in a means of degrading the expressions of Carrey by trivializing the therapeutic element of art.
“Crudely coloured Jesus-like faces, lurish fluorescent portraits, random abstractions and kitshch clay figures – this is a joke. Please, say it’s a joke.”
Lets make something clear, that this article has clearly decided to pretend isn’t a reality; art is not a simple thing.
There is no set structure – an audience or viewer does not get to decide what is art. That is the whole point of all modern art movements.
Art is a point of expression – and Jones, even Picasso thought so! When asked to explain the symbolism in Guernica, Picasso made a very simple, and perhaps enlightening for you, statement:
It isn’t up to the painter to define the symbols. Otherwise it would be better if he wrote them out in so many words! The public who look at the picture must interpret the symbols as they understand them.
Art is a unique language; and everything is up for interpretation. Carrey used art as a therapy; and he chose to share his pain with the world.
Understand something very simple: the assumption that art must be profound, pretty, or fit any structure we try to assign is wrong. Art goes beyond these social limitations; it is the expression of human thought and emotion. Art can be ugly, many artists in history actually attempted to make art so ugly audiences could not look at it.
Art was their statement.
Just because we disagree with something – maybe, for example, considering a series of artwork ugly or “Crudely coloured Jesus-like faces, lurish fluorescent portraits, random abstractions and kitshch clay figures” – does not entitle us the right to intellectualize the intent or expression of another human being.
You are not that special or important.
Jim Carrey created something; he used the pain within him to create something – not necessarily beautiful, but powerful. And he chose to share that with people because that is the underlying purpose of contemporary art.
It absolutely disgusts me that people are able to use what limited power they have to try and beat someone down. To attempt to trivialize another person.
Who the fuck gave you that right?
Do you know art history I wonder Jones? Even a rudimentary understanding of it would have shamed your conceptual and basic claims.
Start with this: the Impressionist movement (founded by a number of classic artists, perhaps you have heard of them? – van Gogh, Monet, Renoir, Degas) was greeted with scorn and ridicule. The movement was insulted by many in similar positions as you; particularly, Monet’s Impression, Sunrise. Critics attempted to insult the movement with this name; ‘it wasn’t art, it was impressions’.
It is now one of the most revered and iconic art forms and periods of history.
Just because the art of Carrey does not meet your conceptual standards does not mean it is not art; despite what belief you seem to have as a critic you do not actually have any authority to decide that someone has ‘failed’ as an artist.