Art, in my view, is a license to interpret—or to challenge—existence, lifestyle, traditional norms, concepts, and perceptions through a perspective shaped by one’s own intellectual capacity.
This license is earned only when the artist’s work, even if not understood by the audience, evokes not “What is this supposed to be?” but rather “There must be something behind this,” inviting respect and reflection.
Applied to painting: a good artist must first be able to analyze what is visible and known—its light, its color—with precision, and transfer it faithfully onto the canvas.
Once they reach mastery, they must be able to re-express the visible or invisible, the known or unknown, and abstract concepts through their own interpretation and unique style, within the framework of plastic values.
At that point, even if the work is not understood, it is respected.
And others no longer say, “I could do this too.”
With few exceptions, I believe this is the path to becoming a true artist.
Otherwise, the door to abuse and speculation remains wide open—and many do walk through it.
In my opinion, art academies should first train skilled artists, even masters.
Only at the master’s level should modern styles be explored.
This is the right approach.
After all, most—if not all—of the creators behind the impressions that academies now accept as “art” have matured through this very path.