Crude Art Preferred to Cultural Art
Lauren Newton
Crude Art Preferred to Cultural Art
W&L Art History, Winter 2022
Jean Dubuffet painted my least favorite painting I’ve studied thus far. “Will to Power,” an immature rendering of a nude man, is distasteful and hideous. After understanding the context of the painting, I appreciate its anti-Nazi sentiment; however, I detest the painting. Normally, after reading the words of an artist, I’m able to appreciate his work more. This was not the case with Dubuffet. Although I agree that artists should paint from their “inner being[s],” I’m opposed to much that Dubuffet posits in “Crude Art vs Cultural Art.” As an intellect himself, Dubuffet stinks of hypocrisy when arguing against the value of formal training and knowledge. I do agree that the value of a painting is diminished when an artist incorporates too many ideas; however, I value artists’ emotions, personal stories, and artistic visions when viewing art.
An artist’s touch, and through that her personal story, can make a painting all the more moving. Dubuffet argues that “art is a person in love with anonymity,” but I couldn’t disagree more. I find value in connecting with an artwork, and do that by imagining the artist and artistic process. Artists don’t have to be famous to create exceptional art, and art shouldn’t be judged based on the fame of its creator. Dubuffet argues that “no one recognizes” a real artist because “everyone decieves themselves” by appreciating “false” art. I enjoy the notion that art is everywhere, not just the places where elites deem it present. However, I completely disagree that context ruins a piece, or in Dubuffet’s words, “breaks the spell immediately”. I can appreciate well-executed art regardless of context, but my experience as a viewer is enriched drastically when I’m aware of the artists’ creative processes and inspirations.
Artists shouldn’t grow overly comfortable in their mastery; however, they certainly shouldn’t be penalized for a desire to immerse themselves in artistic culture. If Dubuffet believes an artist loses power once she becomes well-known, then I can’t understand why he so enthusiastically inserted himself into the art culture. His critique of intellectuals has no grounds. Just because an artist has been trained does not mean that artist lacks creativity or vision. I concede that vision can be “blinded” when applying formal practices, but I think any artist with true creativity has the ability to think beyond her formal training. An education isn’t a hindrance nor is it essential for success.
Unfortunately, after reading into Dubuffet’s process of creating “Will to Power,” my opinion on the piece only shrunk. I find it hard to believe he was “guided by [his] own impulses”. He blatantly states that he takes inspiration from psychiatric hospitals. Though I appreciate the elevation of asylum art, I’m left baffled. How can this painting be untouched by outside inspiration when its admittedly derivative of asylum art? A psychiatric patient may be able to tap into rawer, more vulnerable emotions, warranting Dubuffet’s praise. However, when emulating the style of those patients, Dubuffet defeats the purpose of Crude Art and destroys his own argument. He uses his formal training to create derivative, abhorrent art yet argues against training’s validity.
Of all of the statements in Dubuffet’s text, I disagree the most with the notion that art becomes “oxidized and worthless” when mixed with ideas. Ideas are the inspiration and purpose behind all artwork, whether or not the ideas are concrete. I agree that a painting can become overly complicated when an artist tries to encompass too many ideas because it could be difficult for the viewers to digest. But, I think artists should barely, if at all, consider their paintings’ impacts on their viewers. If an artist’s ideas involve potential audience reception or perceived correct practices of painting, her work is less genuine. Furthermore, I’d argue that Dubuffet did consider his audience’s reception whe creating “Will to Power” and assumed it would be controversial, which, again, defeats the purpose of his argument.
Although I’m biased against Crude Art because I find it obnoxious, unnecessary, and nauseating, I’m unable to respect Dubuffet as an artist nor as an intellectual. He should not be encouraging a culture of ignorance in “Crude Art Preferred to Cultural Art” by castigating intellectuals. Whether or not an artist has been trained should be irrelevant, and artists who express raw emotions and vulnerability create the most compelling pieces. I prefer art that is simplistic in nature and intricate in symbolism and details. I enjoy works that challenge me and make me reconsider my gut reaction, especially when I’ve heard their backstories. With that being said, artwork that is “deliberately degenerate” is distasteful, and I will never appreciate a painting that looks like it was painted with shit.
