I’ve done a lot of thinking about art, the process of creating it, and the process of developing as an artist.
I’ll admit it – my motivation was to consider what makes art successful, with the assumption that there’s a degree of success that validates the utility of art.
I’ve come up with three aspects of art which seem to be connected yet can independently contribute to the success of a work of art in establishing a connection from producer to consumer. These elements, as I see them, are the portion of the world that the art reflects, the perspective of the artist, and the manifestation.
Independently, each can be the reason that someone loves a work of art. Hitting on more than one can get a big following, and making the right moves on all three is what, to me, defines what we consider to be great art.
Some artists simply have great technique, creating effortlessly things of beauty, regardless of the subject or perspective. A beautiful voice, playfulness with pointillism, or athleticism and grace of a dancer can make an arbitrary subject or motivation and create something that people will appreciate. Whether innate talent or learned technique, an artist skillful solely at the process of creation of the manifestation of art can still enjoy a modicum of success.
Other art gets a modicum of success simply because people identify with its subject matter, the fraction of the world the artist has chosen to reflect. Art, as a representation of something, is inherently smaller than the whole of nature, and reflects some portion of the world, even if that portion of the world is simply as perceived by the artist (which allows for the imagination to be that which is reflected, even if abstract). There are people who will be drawn to songs about love or images of strength, despite their other qualities.
Third, art contains a perspective. Sometimes the perspective is shown by the selection of subject matter, sometimes it’s intertwined with the physical manifestation, but other times perspective itself is the draw. A comedian may have the voice of a puking camel, look like a bridge troll, and be talking about laundry, but whip out a punchline that can only be looked at as masterful.
Mastery in all three areas seems almost a guarantee of success, and there are many who’ve gone far doing well with two of them, even with a "fatal flaw" in the other. I submit Radiohead and Neil Young as evidence of this — neither Thom nor Neil has a voice that could earn a living as a wedding singer, yet their musical works are exalted for their artfulness.
Furthermore, I believe that if one were to classify success as critical or commercial, that strength in performance and subject matter selection for the audience are the keys to "popular" commercial success, performance and perspective lead to moderate levels of commercial success among those who consider themselves critical consumers of art, and that subject matter and perspective gain traction among those who are actively seeking out artists’ perspective on things, often critics or people emotionally attached to a subject.
Those who manage all three become cultural icons, sometimes entering the public consciousness wholly deified, and others by garnering attention with success in two of the areas, developing in the third over time.
I don’t need to be a cultural icon, but I’d like to be useful in an artistic capacity, and so I’m using the framework I’m developing to figure out where to focus efforts in a way that’s most likely to make me happy, with the given that I’d like to provide people with a meaningful artistic experience.
As always, I’m open to discussion.