The goal of art is to seek and express truth in life, to see, and hopefully show, things as they are. Art, like life, is about the process. A “final product” is part of that process, not separate from it. The more true to life, and the experience of life, art is, the better it is. This has nothing to do with the medium, or whether something is “realistic” or not in its portrayal. A piece (of creative material) that is extremely abstract or “unrealistic” can speak to, or uncover, or pick out, something that helps us understand a truth or reality of life/ourselves/each other.
The world in which we live is not—as we think it is—real, in the sense that it is surrounded and covered and distorted by illusion, fear, false constructs, selfishness, misguided motivation and such, so that part of art’s job is to break down these things to get to what is really there, and to help us do the same. Art should not help us construct and cling to more illusions, it should help us recognize and deal with truth in the recognition and absence of illusions, for illusion, like the art itself, is a tool, a thing to be engaged by the mind and “heart,” or gut. So, even though we might be trying to portray truth, that doesn’t mean that we must utilize a “realistic” medium.
I think that this confusion over the word “realistic” is a problem in creative circles. Often, it might be more effective to use a less “realistic” medium in which to examine certain themes and ideas, because then we can get away from the limitations of the current culture and society with its discursive, subjective, and usually quite confused illusions and delusions. This is what so-called abstract artists have tapped into, even if a lot of it is just crap.
.
From my personal notes, early 1999 (exact date unknown).
