I hate art
Art has always been a medium for me to express myself. Though I do not endeavour in the acts commonly associated with “creating art” (e.g. Painting, drawing, music, etc.) too often, it remains the thing I reach toward when I need an emotional outlet – when I want to express my emotions without having to give words to it (unless the said outlet is writing, then I am literally using words). There is, however, a distinction for me personally when I create art, and that is when I create art as an emotional outlet versus when creating art for a purpose other than that: art purely as an emotional outlet, which to me is the purest form of art possible, can be perceived as being art “for the self and only for the self”; what I mean by this is that the art in question has no purpose other than being the emotional outlet for the artist – it is not created for a purpose other than expressing the self, and in it, there is no want or need to get recognition for the act of creating the art and the art itself, for it is not important to the artist in question. Due to there not being a specific “purpose” to creating the art and the art itself. If I create an art piece that is meant for something more than just the act of expressing my emotions, it loses the sincerity that it should have. It is not meant to be seen as a bad thing; art can induce many things, but pure art is for the self, and the only observers are the artist and the universe – an intimate and sacred connection.
When looking at the reasoning of Abramovic behind her artistry, one can argue that the main purpose of her art is not to elicit emotions or even express them: The function of the artist in a disturbed society is to give awareness of the universe, to ask the right questions, to open consciousness and elevate the mind.” (Interview text of 33 artists in 3 acts) This leads me to believe that her perception of art is that it should be thought-inducing, it should give way to a higher sense of self, one that thinks deeper about things and looks for a deeper meaning, trying to interpret freely and understand as opposed to simply committing an act of voyeurism. Art in this case, could be deemed as symbolic according to her. And due to this it follows that Abramovic’s art does not have the function of expressing emotion. Art is not supposed to make aware necessarily; it is supposed to tell a story to express oneself, and even though she does that through her performance pieces, it is the fact that she wants to induce certain thoughts in people that take away from the purity of what art usually is, an expression of emotion.
So even if I would want to analyse her works on emotional expression, I could not, as it is not what the main purpose of her art is, and because of it, the “voyeurs” that view her work cannot purely focus on emotional expression, as they are too puzzled thinking about what she tries to portray with her pieces, or maybe they even pretend to understand.
Additional information about why I do not want to write about her artwork:
It seems as if the art world thrives on dysfunction, praising mental instability, insanity, depression – suffering. Marina Abramovic’s art might showcase the limit of human behaviour, though it also showcases just exactly the absurdity of art: it's not “how far can I go”, it is how far can I go until someone realises putting myself in danger for “art” is stupendous. But the art world seems to want the artworks with the biggest impact, to have the most pretentious explanations, and to interpret freely the things that should not be deemed art in the first place. Marina Abramovic’s work, putting herself in danger, is a representation of everything that is wrong with the art world. Her work can induce emotion; it can make you realise something, and if I try to look for a deeper meaning behind her artwork, I can probably find it. But it is exactly that fact, the fact of art needing to have a deeper meaning, that makes art no longer a medium for self-expression but rather makes it a statement, impactful – it takes away from the essence of what true art is (at least according to my opinion). One might view her artistry as a genius, but the only thing I see is that we are condoning mental and physical suffering that is wrapped and sold as being “art”.