ian-antonio-patterson, industry, creative-edit, sustainability, berlin, germany, jamaica

Art in all its forms is capable I think of a purer communication. I sense this. It’s an idea I’ve been reflecting on for a while; this together with the sturdily evocative learning potential of a host of derived associations anchored sometimes by a single piece. How well does it trigger dialog, or provide utility? How well does it cause provocation or inspire meaning? How zealously is it rejected, when why and how? How does it change the way we see the world?

Sensibilities for everything-art I think, as well as for the divine are somehow primal; they are unique in their appreciation and expression. We all have notions in our heads and it’s a delightful relief to meet people, take part in events or experiences which confirm, console and help these ideas to take proper form and find grounding. It’s a thing that in its multiplicity unites us at a basic level. It speaks with and without words and [can] celebrate both individualism and collectivism at the same time – like plucking an inner string, a reminder of a common inner resonance that promises to unite for the good of the many.

Loves, fears; emotion illustrated?


ian-antonio-patterson

This uniting quality inspires “in-groups” (and out-groups”) and dialects to different ends, sometimes by accident, sometimes by design. A single collective vocabulary of meaning making. A dialect or a narrative for instance serves a certain [individual] group best. We all use ‘in-groups’ and ‘out-groups’ to define ourselves, and a dialect becomes a language when it acquires an army or a great many fans. I appreciate German satire for instance, no richer lesson in language for me, and I’d love to be able to share some of the ‘funny doors’ with my English speaking friends, but I can’t really, because a lot of the many layers of meaning simply belong to the German speaking collective.

There is therefore art in the written and the spoken word; and as I attempt to put my own ‘incomplete inner discourse of many colours’ to bits, the questions I put to myself today are as follows:
“If Kitsch is the opposite of Art” – and if a purpose for art is for the artist to share his world, could it be the vibrance of the ensuing conversations that qualifies a piece? Its ability to capture a Zeitgeist-in-a-single-frame – and what if there is no frame? What would say a decorator, a hip-hopper or a master cook; a politician or a systems engineer? And if art is abused by power does it become kitsch?