On Icons

Letter

As humans, we like mirrors. We like to look into them and contemplate our development and our experiences. We objectify people and things, generating icons via media to create commonplace language or imagery that conveys our particular beliefs. We build socio-icons so we can imagine ourselves, and we can regard paintings as a special kind of mirror too: painters investigate certain aspects of life and paintings show us the mundane world from a particular viewpoint, and we then respond to the reflections. A painting tells us a quite different tale about royalty, superstardom, fame and celebrity than the press. It’s not unlike what Constantine was saying about the link between royalty and divinity.

But when royalty, superstars and celebrities begin to make paintings, two worlds begin to collide. When our icons suddenly begin swapping identities, we have to adjust our orbits, too.

The paintings by Damien Hirst, Bob Dylan and Her Majesty Queen Margrethe II remind me that that we use historical events and public figures as points of reference; that our brains cope with data by simplifying information; that celebrity and anonymity are products of a civilization where citizens’ identities are often inextricable from their professional trade; that the human brain assesses situations to keep us from harm and to reveal opportunities that will improve our sense of safety; that we categorize groups of citizens in accordance to their race, gender, sexuality, class, caste, ghetto etc; that analysis is subjective; that we can’t escape basic needs, no matter how secure we feel and no matter how high up in society we suppose we are situated.

Art is an open-ended concept in the realm of the mind. As the concepts art and painting evolve, so do their counterparts in our vocabulary; in other words, we inadvertently make “art” by embracing new ideas. And because a maker of art is an artist, anyone participating in the revision of the term art is an artist – a conceptual artist. Even changing one’s opinion about innovations in art could be perceived as an endless conceptual artistic gesture.

Damien Hirst, Bob Dylan and Her Majesty Queen Margrethe II of Denmark are as likely as anyone else to advance art as a term. The chances of us becoming colleagues outside the realm of painting are slim, but as professional artists, the contributions made to painting by Mr. Hirst, Mr. Dylan and Her Majesty are perhaps about as probable candidates for advancing the field as any other painter, despite their obvious advantage of being famous. Fame is undoubtedly a great catalyst for getting work shown, even if it is by no means a guarantee of rank or relevance.

When we’re evaluating the paintings of already well-established individuals, it may behoove us to ask ourselves a few simple questions: how can these works of art bring me further to an understanding of art and of painting? How are these paintings beneficial to me and my personal development of art as a term?

The paintings made by the monarchy, the superstars and the celebrities of today may not necessarily have long-term relevance for the field of painting, but they are relevant to art as a term in general. Regardless of their quality, they affirm that the icons promoted by our society are indeed human beings, fundamentally attracted to the same lights as we are.

I find that these three socio-icons/painters resonate with me. I see their paintings as expressions of a social need and as the search for a connection to a world outside themselves. They remind me of the process of development as a painter; of identity crises and the struggle to find your voice; of finding yourself after an arduous journey; of the battle to dispel illusions, insecurity, cynicism and ambition; and finally, of realizing your aspirations to be sincere and humble.