Michael Mitchell: Archive

An objective artist, such as Vermeer or William Bouguereau, looks outside of his mind and draws inspiration from the world around him, then chooses to faithfully reproduce what he sees, such as a beautiful woman or a magnificent landscape. He may even choose to recreate a rotting corpse or a flooded graveyard, nonetheless he remains loyal to what he sees.

A nonobjective artist, such as Vincent Van Gogh or Pablo Picasso, likewise looks outside of his mind, but he finds nothing inspiring in the world around him, so he chooses to faithfully reproduce what he feels. Of course, it is impossible to visually reproduce the invisible, so he chooses a subject, such as a beautiful woman or a magnificent landscape, and then blurs and deforms it until it looks as ugly as he feels. He may even choose to go completely abstract, like Wassily Kandinsky or Jackson Pollock, recreating aspects of objects, such as colors or shapes, in a random manner that recreates nothing real at all -- only he wouldn't be an artist anymore, just a man who vomits color on media.

It's no doubt obvious from the style of my descriptions that I favor objective art over nonobjective art, but it's more than merely a personal preference. It's not a matter of taste, such as salt versus pepper; cherry versus grape; blonde versus brunette. It's a matter of true versus false; real versus unreal; good versus evil.

In the visual fields, such as painting or animation, an artist is creating images. An image, both physical and mental, is by definition a reproduction of that which can be seen. The justification that an artist should strive to create artworks that faithfully represent reality is really that simple. Anything less is a lie.

This is why an abstract artist, though he may be talented and his works may be popular and very emotional and even pleasant to look at, is not an artist at all. An abstract painting is not a painting of anything that can be seen. Sure, color is real and shapes are real, too. But these are qualities or attributes of an object, they cannot be separated from the object. Hence, the term "abstract." So when the viewer looks at it, he might feel something, but he sees nothing. It's esthetic fraud.

It's easy to simply ignore the abstract artists. They may be attacking the idea of art in general, but it's a very weak attack. However, the nonobjective artists of the more realistic variety, the ones who recreate reality but deform it, are attacking reality itself. They're guilty of the same error: failing to recreate reality the way it looks. But they go one step further, choosing to recreate reality in a manner that distorts our perception of it. I may or may not agree with wasting paint or pixels on an ugly woman, but if the finished work resembles the subject then it's a good work of art. A nonobjective artist would choose to paint a beautiful woman, deforming her shape and muddying her colors in an attempt to change the viewer's perception of beauty. It's esthetic assault.

You see, it's not about what I prefer to look at; it's not that I like beautiful women more than ugly ones. It's that I need to see reality the way it really looks, the way it is. A nonobjective artist shows me a false reality. He creates a distorted image of a beautiful woman in an attempt to show me that I can't see beauty. He's attacking human perception. It's evil.

An objective artist, whether he chooses a subject I love or hate, is at least showing it to me the way it is. He knows the efficacy of all human action rests upon the validity of human perception. He would never dream of attacking it because he knows he relies on it the same, even more, since the purpose in life he has chosen is to recreate what he sees. His ability to see, his keen awareness of physical reality down to the smallest detail, is the quality in himself he is the most proud of. And this leads him to create works that show me reality in a new light or that show me important aspects of reality I failed to see on my own. It's esthetic pleasure.

And when an objective artist creates a masterful work of a beautiful subject, a work I want to stare at for hours, a work that communicates an important theme I'll contemplate for days -- the feeling is so impossible to describe that in order to explain it to someone else all I'd be able to do is point at the artwork and say: "See." It's esthetic bliss.

I'm not saying fidelity to reality is the only principle an artist should follow if he wants to create good works of art. The subject is not the only attribute an artist must consider. There are also theme, composition and style to consider. But it is the most important one; the subject is what is being recreated.

The bottom line: If you recreate your subject faithfully, then you are an objective artist. If you don't, then you're not -- though I hope you are.