Charles Buell

Someone is shy

Edit profile

Charles hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Charles Buell
Posted over 1 year ago
What a painting "means" is useless and has likely always been so.
Carolyn, your experience of my paintings would just be your own experience---how could I have a problem with that :) Art lives on long after we die and people still have experiences with it---the presence or opinion of the artist certainly does not matter then and most likely does not really matter now. Could my feelings be hurt? Possibly but that has more to do with me than the viewer and is not what we are talking about. If you want to see what my work is like you can easily find it by googling my name + "art." Art, like love, just is---as soon as we give it reasons it ends.
Noface
Charles Buell
Posted over 1 year ago
What a painting "means" is useless and has likely always been so.
I am not really sure who calls the shots about what art means---I do think that I am totally capable of having my own experience of anything independent of whether I have been informed about it---told a story about it. It may be a different "kind" of experience but no less valuable. The notion that some would have me believe that my experience is necessarily diminished by lack of "information" is what I find objectionable and exclusionary---possibly even elitist. I am accustomed to tilting at windmills :)
Noface
Charles Buell
Posted over 1 year ago
What a painting "means" is useless and has likely always been so.
Quite the contrary, I think the general point of view about art is very limiting for the viewer---I am merely adding to it---expanding the possibilities. The viewer today can be literally hamstrung by assuming it is their lack of "knowledge" that is preventing them from having a real experience with art. Even artists can be considered co-conspirators in this issue---or at least co-dependent :)
Noface
Charles Buell
Posted over 1 year ago
What a painting "means" is useless and has likely always been so.
Again, my premise isn't really about what the artist is trying to do---it is about the viewer. What is necessary for the viewer to be the viewer? What I am trying to get at is that "nothing" is "necessary." For example, we do not need to be taught anything or learn anything to appreciate a sunset. While it might be interesting to know that it is red because some volcano went off somewhere, the appreciation does not require that knowledge. Some may argue that the sunset is not art---painting the sunset is art. I would only say that there can be art that is "like" the sunset---art without "intent."