I've become very interested in Henry Darger recently, and have just read the following from this article:
Today Darger’s work can be found in museums and galleries, and although his work is deemed popular and a “hot” commodity, the Realms paintings still haven’t been determined as art or non art. "I can’t get myself unstuck from an assumption about the importance of intent in art. Especially intent with regard to communicating…this assumption has led me to conclude that the work of Henry Darger… is not 'Art' because…he had no intention of ever showing it to anyone, meaning it was not created with the intent of communicating anything with anyone, and that then made it something other than 'Art.'" – Ed Winkleman, New York Art Dealer and owner of Winkleman Gallery.
I find myself violently disagreeing with the sentiments of Ed Winkleman. If self-conscious intent (or, to put it another way, posing) is what constitutes art, then so much the worse for art. I only have to look at the work of Darger and the lack of awareness of a public in it makes other artists wither away in comparison.
I dare say there's some kind of balance to be struck, but… at the moment I won't say more.
Especially intent with regard to communicating…this assumption has led me to conclude that the work of Henry Darger… is not ‘Art’ because…he had no intention of ever showing it to anyone, meaning it was not created with the intent of communicating anything with anyone, and that then made it something other than ‘Art.'”I agree – this is a preposterous statement. At very least, all art communicates with at least one individual, namely the creator. That is enough.
Also check out Adolf Woelfli!
A person’s art is just a reflection of their character; some art is gregarious, some is reclusive. Is a person not a person because they don’t want to communicate with anyone? These critics should be shot.
sort of strange but i kind of like them… the darger pics.and richard, that was a very strange video. :happy:
I like making art for myself:-) Nice if people can see it but it’s biggest beauty is in it’s existance:-) So if he created it, that’s art no question:-)
Sorry I haven’t answered the comments here. Really have a lot to deal with at the moment.Dowson, too, as in the Oingo Boingo song (or possibly not as in the Oingo Boingo song) loved little girls. I’m guessing not in the same way as Adolf Wolfi, but must confess I don’t know much about either of them.Henry Darger’s little girls, when naked, all seem to have penises. It has been suggested he did not know the difference (at least reproductively) between a boy and a girl. Presumably, if so, he wasn’t interested enough in this particular area to find out.I’m quite capable of believing in innocence. Some, who can’t remember such a thing, are not.Sorry, I realise this isn’t spectacularly interesting. Just wanted to answer and say hello. And I agree with those who agree with me here.
For a while now I have been wanting to write a comment about how the quote from Mr. Winkleman above seems to rather disingenuously ignore the common notion that an artist might ‘banish their demons with’ or ‘put themselves into’ their work. Considering how much the abuse of children seems to have affected Darger, I would have to say that this seems to be at least partially true in his case. And if any of that kind of personalization is put into something, even without intentionally leaving the work to posterity, wouldn’t that make his ultimate audience ‘destiny’?
For me the creative urge did not start with any consciousness of an audience. You can have a sense of beauty and wonder even when you’re on your own. I suppose it’s like a religious thing in a way. People don’t necessarily pray/worship/celebrate for the sake of an audience.