Art and Blinders

Being a self taught artist, I've worked in various styles over the years as a teenager. In the past ten years or so, I have slowly evolved my own language and my own sense of style.

I hate to define my work in terms of -isms but I suppose the world views it that way and it is important to finally have an Artist's Statement that says what you and your work is all about. In precise professional terms. So, if I have to fit my work in an -ism, I would grudgingly say that I am an Oscillating Impressionist-Expressionist. Sometimes, I am concerned with the visual beauty of things and that is where my light, airy interpretation of things comes in and I go full swing, simply and harmonically to being an Impressionist. And when I decide to create from the subconscious and my subject matter is an emotional response, I become an Expressionist. Looks like I have coined my own art term there. Spoofs apart, I gravitate more towards being an Expressionist. My work uses colour and composition as tools of emoting. Over the years, I further narrowed down my work to what really calls me. More than the pure aesthetically pleasing impression of a subject, I am concerned with the feelings and emotional reactions the piece elicits.

A question that I have addressed over the years without satisfactory answers is why does an Artist, when he turns professional and is aiming for commercial success, have to stick to one style? By Artist, I am using a broad term- one could be a musician, painter or writer. But let's stick to artists here for the time being. Wouldn't a work in screaming green, blue and yellow by Da Vinci seem a little jarring, now that we have type cast him as one who produces brooding, evocative work in sepias and browns? Could it be possible that Dali felt like making something other than Surrealistic nightmares and felt like painting a simple rose for Gala, without symbolism, myth and metaphor?

A friend told me that an artist ceases to be an artist the day he turns "professional". I thought the statement was presumptuous. And powerfully true. I don't like to paint sceneries unless I have an expressionist take on them. But a realistic rendition? No sir, not my style, I say. I do portraits but again, the strokes are Expressionist. I love Figurative art and all the works I produce are Expressionist. When I go to the houses of friends who have the work I did as a teenager, up on their walls, I cringe. Because it was an experimental phase when I dabbled in all forms and all styles and was a free spirit. And now that I have what I call "my own language" and "my signature style", I can't identify with that unfettered past anymore. I don't know if it is a good or bad thing. That is what puzzles me.

I know of a famous artist ( not mentioning names here!) who put up a painting in a public space. A piece that was completely different from the body of work he normally produces. He smartly took the money and did not sign the work. Simply because he was someone with "name and reputation" and had his "signature style" out there by now. And this commission, which was done purely for money, would have had critics and art hawks questioning why this piece was not in accord with his "blue phase" or "orange phase" or whichever portion of the colour wheel he was on at that point in time. This, I would think, is a prime example of how commercial success really kills the artist. He no longer paints from the heart. The creative process suddenly becomes a very "aware" one, limited by expectations, results and reputation.

Which leaves me with the question I started with- does commercial success kill the artist in the sense that it puts blinders on his creative self and all his subsequent work is then a process that is streamlined in one direction?