Art as transference of energy
I think making art right now is very difficult for many because we have tied art to capitalism in a way that binds the artists to seeking appeal instead of discourse. At a time when so many are suffering and world order seems balanced on a precipice inhabited by lunatic villiain-aires, how can one justify making pretty things without function that cost a lot of money? Does art need to be political right now? Are beautiful objects trite, a bow on the bomb of capitalist-tech-fascism or do they help remind us of our humanity as so many artists want to believe? I think the answer lies in the intent of the artist and we need to be interrogating ourselves a bit harder in the coming years, pushing ourselves to remember that art can and must serve more than an artist’s ego for it to be considered relevant, consequential, profound, or universal. As one of my Pratt professor’s once said to a classmate during a studio visit, “Why should this work exist in the world? why should anyone care?”
In 2025, it is simply not enough to make a thing and to declare it art and yourself an artist. We’re post meaning when art can be anything to anyone and the market is so detached from any recognizable value pattern, when people can argue about worth and value without any other contextual knowledge. It means nothing when someone says they are an artist now really. “What kind of art do you make,” inevitably follows but even those answers have just become too specified for most people to continue listening. The word has ceased to tell us anything other than the notion the artist exists and is perceived to have more autonomy than those with a “job.” Everyone has a phone now, everyone is a photographer. Everyone has their own channel and is their own product and brand vying for reach and views. We’ve all become public facing extensions of something tenuously connected way down below our appeal. And because we can all self publish all of our content endlessly, seeking our own audiences on platforms we don’t control, more people than ever have come to believe their work has intrinsic value. But does it?
Am I an artist because I have an MFA that says I am masterful? Am I an artist because I sell artwork to people out of a studio space or website? Am I an artist because I work with galleries that show and sell my work on my behalf? Am I an artist because I make things? Am I an artist because I make Art? What is Art?
I’ve always been an artist because I have always had the desire and never questioned that I have the right to make and leave my mark on this world. Ever since I was a child, my instinct has been to change, transform, harmonize, beautify, highlight, subvert, or in some way call attention to a thing that has come to my attention, that I have acted upon in a way that transfers something of me and my process or thinking to others. Art is a vehicle for transference and I am an artist because I can harness my materials to create a transference of energy between myself as maker, the object or idea, and the viewer. I am my own medium and it’s taken me a long time to see that my most successful works are the ones where my role is not to make a declarative statement driven from my own ego or skill, but to create the space and conditions for for dialogue to arise for others.
One of the reasons I have always preferred to work abstractly or without an outcome in mind is because this allows for even more space and ambiguity to exist around a work. Being open to and aware of the myriad of interpretations a work might surface for someone is not something every artist can do, and some get offended or discouraged when viewers miss their intention entirely. But if an artist has an intention, and the viewer does not get it, the fault lies entirely with the artist or with the curation/installation. If you make a thing and put it out in the world and that thing fails to communicate what you intended, well, that is either bad art, a bad showing, or a lack of context. Too many artists nowadays shift the burden of understanding or desire to the viewer entirely and then whine when their work is misunderstood or undesired. It is ok to ask viewers to work, to read, to think, but it is not ok to treat them as if they are dumb, simple, or incapable of catching your meaning when really you’re just not good at communicating your meaning. And if you want to be desired, you cannot just make declarative statements; you must make space for others to exist as well, you must introduce them to your work and they have to want to get acquainted. This does not mean make art for everyone. It means you must think of who you are making art for. If your answer is “Just for me,” and you’re still sharing it and trying to et people to buy or show it, I will call you a liar. The second we show our work to others we are not making it just for ourselves. We are making it to be seen and to reap the energy that is exchanged between the viewer, the work, and sometimes us. That impact, that moment where what we have created generates a response in someone else, a spark that turns a wheel, is what most artists are seeking. And when we turn a lot of wheels we acquire momentum and our ideas have a chance to live on after us.
I have come to understand I am looking for an exchange of energy when I make and share because I seem to have an abundance within me that needs to be transferred to external materials, constantly. I am not looking to be the best at any one thing, but rather to be an artist that is continually posing questions and introducing people to ways of seeing and thinking they had not been in touch with previously. I want to make introductions. Images from the studio today.