Whatever I might say about myself or my pictures can touch the pure artistic meaning only superficially. The observer must learn to look at the picture as a graphic representation of a mood and not as a representation of objects.
All that anyone can say about pictures, and what I might say myself, can touch the contents, the pure artistic meaning, of a picture only superficially. Each spectator for himself must learn to view the picture solely as a graphic representation of a mood, passing over as unimportant such details as representations or suggestions of natural objects. This the spectator can do after a time, and where one can do it, many can.
Given a work of art, painting, sculpture, music—anything—its appreciation and understanding depend upon the attitude of the audience.
A work of art may be, and ultimately must be viewed from two very different points of view—the point of view of the artist, and the point of view of the observer.
The great majority of people view a painting only from the latter point of view, only in the light of their preconceived notions and prejudices—hence the ridicule of the strange and the protest against the new.
A very, very small minority—a minority so small it numbers scarce one in ten thousand—view a new work searchingly and at the same time sympathetically from the artist’s point of view, seeking diligently to find out what he is trying to do, and not permitting a single prejudice or preconceived notion of their own to bias their judgment.
After this class of observers have ascertained what the artist intended, then, and not until then, do they turn and view the work from their own point of view—that is, in the light of their own likes and dislikes.
Their final appreciation may be that granting the theories of the artist the picture is a fine one, but they do not agree with the artist’s theories, hence the picture from their point of view is a failure as a work of art.