On part one I touched only upon the fact that art must be contemporary for it to have spirit. Of course many of you (art historians) will know that the theory comes from Kandinsky. But I subscribe totally to it. And I also mentioned the colour wheel, and the importance of knowing what colours create the appropriate atmosphere/message for your work. Lastly I told you that originality is not important. And it is not. It is how you interpret, or re-interpret older ideas or older works of art. This is the essence of this second part. Picasso said that good artists borrow, but that great artists steal. And I am fully in agreement, but, like him, I believe that you must make something better than that which you borrowed or stole. That is why there is nothing really original. But what you can make of the «stolen/borrowed» work, that becomes the you in the moment, and the work with the new spirit reflecting the times. Another thing that is very important is that you study, thoroughly, Art History. That is how you know what has been done, why, what results it had and how it fit into the developing art world. Art does not evolve, but artists do. In order to evolve as an artist, you must know what others have done and why, and how that has affected the way art reflects upon society today.
+++
En la primera parte toqué únicamente el hecho de que el arte debe ser contemporáneo para tener espíritu. Por supuesto, muchos de ustedes (historiadores del arte) sabrán que la teoría proviene de Kandinsky. Pero estoy totalmente de acuerdo con ello. También mencioné la rueda de colores y la importancia de saber qué colores crean la atmósfera/mensaje adecuado para su obra. Por último, les dije que la originalidad no es importante. Y no lo es. Se trata de cómo interpretas o reinterpretas ideas antiguas o obras de arte anteriores. Esta es la esencia de esta segunda parte. Picasso dijo que los buenos artistas toman prestado, pero los grandes artistas roban. Y estoy totalmente de acuerdo, pero, como él, creo que debes hacer algo mejor que aquello que tomaste prestado o robaste. Por eso no hay nada realmente original. Pero lo que puedes hacer con la obra «robada/prestada», eso se convierte en el tú en el momento, y el trabajo con el nuevo espíritu refleja los tiempos. Otra cosa que es muy importante es que estudies a fondo la Historia del Arte. Así es como sabes lo que se ha hecho, por qué, qué resultados tuvo y cómo encajó en el mundo del arte en desarrollo. El arte no evoluciona, pero los artistas sí. Para evolucionar como artista, debes saber lo que otros han hecho y por qué, y cómo eso ha afectado la forma en que el arte refleja la sociedad de hoy.
CHEERS – GRACIAS
Instagram: @Francisco_Bravo_Cabrera
JaZzArt en València 
I do agree that there is nothing really original. Even the original work of great artists was usually inspired by something.
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
They were, for sure. Thank you!
Me gustaMe gusta
I wonder, though, when we speak of borrowing and stealing, if we are speaking more about influence. This isn’t to deny your point because there is a lot of stealing and borrowing in artistic expression. MFA programs tend to encourage these. But influence would seem to me, be different. When we are influenced, we think more clearly, seek different perspectives, grow in our artistic expression, and push our boundaries. When we steal or borrow, we have no intention to learn, but are merely going through the motions, claiming something that isn’t our own by merely imitating. Just thinking outloud here.
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
I agree reference the way you have defined influence in art, or having an artist, or a body of work as reference. Borrowing, or stealing is something different. Picasso said good artists borrow, great ones steal. What he meant is that an artist will simply copy another artist’s idea, or composition and perhaps add, or remove some of the elements, and he would be a «good» artist. But a great artist will «steal» the piece, make it his own, create upon it, and the «stolen» piece will end up being something much grander and better. Both, «borrowing» and «stealing» can be thought of as learning experiences as well because obviously the artist/thief needs to create upon the «stolen» work. Thank you so much Charles for keeping the conversation going. All the best.
Me gustaMe gusta
Thank you for your response. However, it does raise more questions, as I am certain you have been questioning the issues, too, though with far more experience and insight than I have. When we look at the art of Picasso and Andy Warhol, as two examples, we see sloppiness in the execution of their ideas, as well as a cheapening of earlier ideas for commercial success. There is stealing and borrowing, as you define them, but there appears to be a negative side to the process. On the flip side, you have Pissarro and Emily Carr, as two examples, of the positive side, both stealing and borrowing, and those who followed them doing the same. Do you agree with that assessment? I would enjoy interviewing you on the subject of influence, stealing, and borrowing for a blog. I would send you questions for your response, then follow up. for clarifications, if you are open to the idea of doing this. You have raised an issue that I think that I think many artists haven’t thought through, let alone considered that would be helpful to their development. Also, I think it has broad implications for writers, too,
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
Thank you Charles, and I greatly appreciate your participation and your input into this dialogue about art. I would like to reply fully and clearly and therefore I would accept the idea of an interview and thank you for your invitation. As a quick reply, I would not put Picasso and Warhol together in anything. Although Picasso, in his later years did canibalise the work of many great artists, including Diego Velazquéz… I await your questions with gratiude.
Me gustaMe gusta