the empty frame

I enjoy a good conversation about art and aesthetics and for this reason I attended the recent talk at Tufts University entitled, "The Value of Art: The Place of Art in the University Today." The panel was made up of scholars, art historians, sociologists and even an artist. The language was heady and prompted earnest ears and busy pens. There was some very good intellectual terms used that wet my whistle for the "creative word" (see previous post). Such language as empty frames (think Isabella Stewart Art Museum), canonical artist (Warhol), rubric (just a cool word I heard used), public vs. private domain, etc.  Of course the catalyst for the discussion was the recent Brandeis University debacle which I feel may end up providing us with a much needed lesson and benefit before it's said and done.

But as I left the discussion to return to my workaday world of art and photography I felt a void. Although all of the discussion was about art I felt deflowered of ideas and verveless. I realize for me, this comes about whenever one talks about art and money. I am not so naive as to think that one is totally divorced from the other. But for me, I do see that as an artist I need to create in a fashion that is divorced from money.

Art has at its origin a virginal state, a soulful place where creativity flows. From this place an idea forms and mechanics follow. Money is not located at that place of origin. Money is much further down the chain. So at its inception one creates and if the creation is good, money follows.

So in the end I'm redefining "the empty frame". No longer does it stand for stolen art at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum or can it be used as a metaphor for a university selling off its art collection. Nope, I'm reclaiming "the empty frame" and it now means that creative ether where nothing but artistic potential lies.

Now I feel better.