_convert_20171118233757_edit.jpg)
Artist's Policy
Artist's Policy
Artist's Policy
Artist's Policy
Artist's Policy
§ 【Man in Art = Creatorｓ+Appreciators+Critics】 §
By the name of "artist", only "creator" is emphasized, so that the "art" is commercialized and the presence of the appreciator is ignored.
When [Man in Art] that is "creator", "appreciator", and "critic" confront each other in a completely equal relationship, the cycle of "creation-appreciation-critique-creation-" is born.
For first time, I believe that the artistic expression becomes tangible, the label attached to "commercialized art" is peeled off, and the "core of art" appears.
At that time, would most people (at least far more now) become involved in "the art" in some way as one of [3 kind of Man in Art].
If so, I think art will be open to everyone and will be a "joy" that is given equally to all.
At that time, around [Man in Art], a "world without winning and losing" is born, and I think that every person becomes an "individual person."
* I call everyone involved in the art, [Man in Art] (= creator, appreciator, critic) instead of calling it “artist” to consider it an equal stand .
* This does not aim at standardization such as "everyone should do the same art".
Rather than standardization, it is a proposal that "everyone finding oneself" can be "art".
§ 【Plan of Fantasy in Daily Space】 §
The appearance of "fantasy" which is extraordinary event in everyday space, is showing a sign of the current direction of art.
Until now, art works viewed at least in private everyday spaces, regardless of whether they are viewed in museums or public places, are always "art as interior" and are given a role as "comfortable objects" and could not get out that frame.
However, the meaning(role) given to “art works in everyday space” in the “era of the present” continues to change every day.
When bring the artworks into a private space, is the "role as interior" still need?
Does "decorating a picture on a wall" still have to be "comfortable"?
And does the "comfortable picture" still have the power to heal the human heart?
No, at present, bringing “uncomfortable paintings” into everyday life has the “meaning(role) of art” and the “power to heal human hearts”.
From such an idea, I thought that by bringing the "fantasy" = "the world in the picture" into the "everyday space", to explore the way of art that would become the "healing of the present".
I think that "decorating a picture on a wall now" is "making illusions emerge in everyday space."
And, for me, the "world of fantasy" is the "world of different reality" described below.
§ 【Multiplexing of Art Expressions】 §
§【Realism of Another Reality=Concrete Abstract Expression】§
We are reviewing the relationship between "art work" and "things around it" and aiming to expand the domain of artistic expression.
Not a few people feel a "dead end" in the current "place of art".
However, almost everyone (including myself, of course) is bound by the word "talent" or "individuality."
As a result, isn't it going to end up with an "extremely difficult task" of having to overcome a very high wall with "the creator's individual competence"?
A
But if think about it, I mind that the "extremely difficult task" is what the "dead end wall" really is.
From some point in the 20th century, the "realm of creation" has been exhausted and too narrow.
As a result, the creator uses the energy that should be used for the original purpose of “self-expression” to secure that “realm of creation”, and before the “self-expression” is reached, fuel runs out.
The “area” is, after all, a “style = form area”.
Originally, these "areas of style" are "areas that exist in a natural form", but now that "areas" are being lost, it is necessary to create a way to secure them.
From such an idea, I consider "style" as a "formal pattern" in order to expand the lost "area of art(creation)", in other words, to increase the types of "style" .
I think that is it possible to increase "style types" by combining multiple "patterns of form" .
If combine "expression forms" in a form called "collaboration" can expand the "area" without limit, but at the same time, it may dilute "artistic expression".
Therefore, I am aiming for inside of the existing "expression form", in my case, "multiplexing" inside of "painting".
To put it in a bit more detail, if could create a "new meaning" by reviewing the "relationship between pictures and the things around them", which has been ignored so far, and giving it a clear role, and it means that it will also be possible to secure a “creative realm”.
Currently, I especially adopt“Picture frames” and “titles” in production.
As for "title (title)", I actually am putting a long title on the picture as [title like poem] = [Poetic Title].
[Gallery] on this site also has these pictures and [Poetic Titles].
If you are interested, please click the [Works] button below.
In addition, I have no time for the "frame" and I am almost intact right now, but I draw stripes called "frames" in almost all pictures.
It is one of the "triple frame designs" that is unite "double frame" (inner frame and outer frame) that I am currently thinking of, and I call "frame in the picture".
I hope you can see my picture at [Works].
Is realism a copy of real?
No, change the wording.
Does realism must be a copy of reality?
Certainly, I think realism is a word that refers to expressing "reality", but does it need to be so faithful to the meaning of that word?
At present, "abstract expression" seems to lose its meaning.
It was not that "abstract" has been left behind at the forefront of contemporary art, but originally, that there was an inadequate part in way of being and how to perceive of "abstract expression" .
In short, I think that the lack of "physical property = concreteness" in "abstract expression" is the "inadequate part".
It is natural that there is no "concreteness" because it is an "abstract expression", and if "concreteness = physicality" is pursued, it naturally becomes "concrete expression".
But, in "abstract expression", was "concreteness" something that had to be eliminated?
Yes, here we return to the opening question.
『Does realism must be a copy of reality?』
『In "abstract expression", was "concreteness" something that had to be eliminated? 』
These two questions are flipped over, but they are almost the same.
Regardless of whether you choose "abstract" or "concrete", haven't you used too much power to completely eliminate the other side?
An object without "physical = concreteness" cannot be an "expression".
Those without "mentality = abstract" must be called emptiness.
I think the need for "abstract" was to expand the range of expression, but from sometime the purpose became to polarize to "abstract", and the expressive power was lost.
As a result, isn't it that both the "creator" and the "viewer" had to accept "expression without power"?
From the above, I am working on the idea of 『It is abstract, but drawing things』.
"And that's what we call "realism of another reality."
As much as possible, I aim to draw the things that don't exist in the real world, and to draw the "world of different reality" as realistically as possible.
I am thinking that want to draw such a "world of different reality" that the farther away from reality, the more and more real, the more fantastic.
* I am not aiming for "strange thing".
So, I'm inevitably affected by the "reality", and my works maybe become incomplete, but what I wrote above is the "world of fantasy for me" that I set as my goal is.
If you are interested in my works, please click [Works] below.
日本語・英語の切り替えは、左のボタンをクリックしてください。その他の言語で読みたい方は、Google翻訳をお使いください。
* If you want to go to the next page, click the [Next page] button.
If you want to know more, click the [Blog] button to see my blog.
Also, if you want to see the works, please go to the menu above or to the [gallery] below.