Describing My Art Form, Finally
I was recently asked to describe my art. It was in the context of an interview about my new co-authored book, which contains some of my art.
I fumbled around. I shared that I use common objects in my art, everything from buttons to envelopes to thread to marbles to shards of broken pots. (The above piece uses actual envelopes; the piece at the end of this post uses buttons and forks.)
I shared that my art is textured. It is sculpture-like without being a sculpture in any traditional sense. I shared that my art messages, although viewers can see within it their own messages. I shared that my art isn’t representational by the standard definition but it does represent a world view or a visual experience or a feeling.
I struggled to describe my art (in words and in my head). The interview was finished and released. Then today, after maybe a week’s time, I came upon a word that actually works to describe my art: farraginous. Didn’t know that word existed even. Its origins stem from a Latin root for mixed grains. The word describes combining incongruous elements, and it can be used in a positive or negative sense. (I am using it positively.)
So, here’s how I’d now describe my art form if I got a do-over and that I can use prospectively: my art is a farraginous assortment of ordinary items, made extraordinary through their use on a canvas or wooden board. This newfound description reminds of the times when one has the perfect retort to someone who has been rude or nasty but the retort comes hours or days after the offensive utterance. And, we have missed the proverbial window.
But, as to my art, better late than never to give it a definition, a meaning, a descriptor, a message. Farraginous …..
