But there is science behind it too. The theory that the purpose of art is to help the artist is also explained by science. Art therapy is a common treatment for anxiety and pain in hospitals. In an article for Psychology Today entitled Art Therapy, they explain how “art therapy helps children, adolescents, and adults explore their emotions, improve self-esteem, manage addictions, relieve stress, improve symptoms of anxiety and depression, and cope with a physical illness or disability.” This means that it has been proven that art helps deal with trauma, furthering my belief that art is meant, most times, for self-expression and is destined to help the artist deal with their feelings. It is only normal that people who enjoy art already, express that anxiety and trauma through art. 

The first time critiques see an art piece they look if the technique is mastered? Is it realistic? Is the art composed awkwardly? What’s the artist’s message? Does the message get through this work of art? But I want to propose you guys another way of defining art. How I define good art is simple. I ask myself one question. Does it make me move and make me feel something?

But after all, there isn’t any “good” or “bad” art. Art is relative to the person.

The human being in himself would exist, but his artistic soul would disappear if he didn't exploit it by creating works of art. Indeed, I think that a person who is destined to be an artist born with an artist's soul. During his life, he will have to cultivate and enrich this soul, by developing an artistic technique for example, through which he will be able to express who he is. In the end, his art will be his passion, and his reason for living. Thus, during her childhood, Shonda Rhimes cultivated and enriched her artistic soul, by developing her imagination, and creating stories with her toys. Thanks to this, she could later define the way she could transmit to others who she is: by creating characters in her own image in her series. Shonda Rhimes has therefore exploited her artistic soul by creating her art, i.e. by inventing numerous series, and by creating characters all different from each other. If she had neglected this artist's soul, it would have disappeared. 

People who are not artists, who have not created anything in their lives, exist of course, but not in the same way as an artist. Indeed, I think that an artist will exist through his works, not that he will disappear behind them, but that they will allow him to get to know himself better, and thus make his place in society. To take the example of Shonda Rhimes, this artist reveals herself through her serial characters, allowing her to get to know herself better by watching her characters play. By getting to know herself better, she is able to define the role she should play in the world she lives in, such as that of being a mother, and learns to know her needs. For example, Shonda Rhimes created Cristina Yang, a girl from the series Grey's Anatomy, who does not want to get married like Shonda. Through this character, Shonda discovered that part of herself that doesn't want to get married. She thus knew that a life as a couple would not make her happy.

People who are not artists will, for their part, get to know themselves and find their place in society in other ways. Through, for example, their friends or family, who will point out their qualities and faults, and help them choose a profession or make decisions based on what best suits their personality. They will also carry out internships in different fields of work, in order to find the one that suits them, and define what they like and dislike.  

People who are not artists therefore exist, but not in the same way as artists, who will get to know themselves and make a place for themselves in society thanks to their art, which will give them an image of their personality; whereas non-artists will need their environment and their personal experiences to get to know themselves better, and to exist in the world in which they live. 

An art that is ahead of its time, although it does not adopt the artistic techniques and characteristics of its time, is in any case created in the time in which the artist lives. As I stated in my commentary, I think that in his art, an artist will depict who he is, and what he has inside himself, as his personal experiences, his feelings or his opinions, which have all been shaped by the society in which he lives. So the Dutch artist Van Gogh was an artist ahead of his time. He created his artworks using his own techniques, denying the artistic standards of the time. Instead of using the fine pencils and brushes used at the time, he used rather frustrating tools such as the knife, chalk or reed, which left the features as they were, with (as he explained in a letter to Emile Bernard in April 1888) "their impasto, their uncovered areas, their repetitions, their brutalities". His strokes are broad, rough, discontinuous, nervous. But it is this irregularity in his features that brings out the emotion in his work. His painting "Red Vineyards at Arles" bears witness to this. Thus, the vines have been painted with quick and not precise, sometimes thick touches of paint. These effective touches of paint move the viewer by their simplicity and beauty, mixed with a certain brutality that underlines the passing of time, and the need to realize this work quickly because the painted spectacle is ephemeral.

This painting, in addition to being proof that Van Gogh was an artist ahead of his time, also testifies to the fact that the art of an artist, even ahead of his time, is a reflection of the society in which he lives. The painting "Red Vineyards at Arles" depicts people harvesting grapes. Behind a cart pulled by a donkey can be seen. Thus, Van Gogh represented here an activity, a profession of the society of his time, which he observed and experienced. An artist today would not represent the same landscape, because society has evolved. Machines take care of harvesting and transport, replacing the carts of the past.

The art of an artist, even ahead of his time, is therefore a reflection of the society in which he lives.           
"Red Vineyards at Arles", Van Gogh 

Indeed, an artist can be inspired by things that already have a life, a story and a meaning to make his works, but even by being inspired, by representing something that already has one, he will always give life and meaning to something that doesn't have any. To take Banksy's example, this artist first of all gives life and meaning to his stencils, to the paint and colours he uses to create his work, which at first have none. Thus, by creating his fresco "Beach Boys" on the Israeli-Palestinian wall that served as his support, he gave meaning to the paint and the colours he used, giving them a purpose, for example to convey an idea, a feeling. In this work, the yellow colour of the bucket conveys a feeling of joy and cheerfulness, in the middle of the two little boys drawn in grey. Secondly, he gives life to his opinions and ideas by representing them through his works. For example, by creating his artwork "The Armoured Dove" on the Israeli-Palestinian wall, which features a white dove with its wings out wide in an open arm stance, with an olive branch in its beak. With this mural, Banksy brings to life his opinion that peace between Israel and Palestine is under great threat, and that if it is killed, it will never return.

An artist will therefore always give life and meaning to something that does not have any, even when inspired by events that already have a life. He will thus give life and meaning to the elements composing his works of art, such as the colours used, as well as to the opinions and ideas conveyed in his works.     

"Beach boys", Banksy 

I agree with you, Elea, that Banksy's art is a reflection of what he knows. But his art is still a reflection of the society in which he lives. Indeed, everything he knows, has seen, and has experienced, has been influenced and shaped by society. I've taken the example of war, but that's true for many others. For example, Banksy created his artwork "God bless Birmingham" in the city of Birmingham, England, on Christmas Eve. This fresco depicts two reindeer flying in the sky, pushing what one would imagine to be a sleigh. But instead of the sleigh, it is a bench, on which a homeless man is lying. Banksy did this work after witnessing the huge number of homeless people in Birmingham on Christmas Eve. Poverty and homelessness in a city exist because of society. Here Banksy wanted to highlight homelessness, and to denounce the fact that the political regime is unable to provide shelter for a homeless person, even on Christmas Eve. But he also wants to highlight the generosity of passers-by who offer him hot chocolate and chocolate bars when they pass him. So Banksy has created a work that is the fruit of what he knows and has seen while walking through the city of Birmingham. But the great poverty and the large number of homeless people he observed is the result of our society. So we can say that an artist's art is a reflection of the society in which he lives. 

As I said in my argument, I think it is the creation stage that is the most fundamental, because it is at this stage that the artist is going to give a part of his soul to his art. Moreover, without this stage, there is no work of art.

But I also attach great importance to the final work of an artist. I believe that it is extremely important, because it is through it that the artist will be able to convey his messages, his feelings, his beliefs, his soul, to the rest of the world. Thus, Shonda Rhimes reveals who she is through her serial characters, to whom she attributes a part of her soul and personality. Moreover, an artist's art can sometimes be, as Lucia rightly said, a way for the artist to overcome a trauma. And for this, he needs courage and perseverance. So I think that the final product is very important, because it is the one that will be the proof of the artist's personality, of his qualities, such as courage, of his faults and feelings.   

 

The expression isn’t always emotional either, it can be intellectual. 

 

Even if it’s not meant to be expressive, we make everything through our biased eyes. Everything we make or see has already gone through our mind that sees something and associates it with a concept we were taught. So immediately, it is already expressive of our thoughts even though it is not meant to be. Jackson Pollock, a famous American abstract/expressionist artist, honestly did what could be considered as something without expression at all. But he took the time to choose the colours he used and used them, and while making the artwork, he was consciously trying to make something out of nothing. That makes his art expressive.

 

And, lastly, it is impossible for someone not to have emotions.  So, it is impossible to make something without emotions. As hard as we try as human beings to be unbiased, just the fact that we exist and we think, makes emotions control everything we make and do. Even if the artist does not mean to make the public feel something when seeing their art, the public will see the art and feel something. Even if it is minute and insignificant, we can’t help but feel some way about something.