I wonder whether it is possible to speak about “private art”. I believe that my doubt is grounded in the argument advanced by Ludwig Wittgenstein against the notion of a “private language” By definition a “language” involves communication, and consequently a system of signs that meant something only to one person couldn’t be regarded as a language in any meaningful sense. In any case, why would one want to devise an entirely idiosyncratic system of signs in order to think one’s own thoughts?
This morning I found myself travelling in the same territory in relation to art. The experience which set me off along these lines was the landscape I have just done. It has passed two days now fastened to the pin-board in the studio, and before that it spent a similar period of time sitting on the easel, while I decided whether or not it was finished.* I’ve reached a conclusion as to why, perhaps, I find myself dissatisfied with it.
The composition is good, as is the draftsmanship. In fact, technically I find it pretty satisfactory. So what is the problem? It comes down to the question of whether or not anybody else would find it interesting. The subject is a rock formation not far from whether I live, on which I have spent many enjoyable hours as a climber. For me, it captures the feel of the rock, and I think also something of the ambiguity of the experience of climbing, vacillating between pleasure and terror. I these respects it pleases me …. but therein lies the problem. Could it please anybody else? Is it too private to be considered as “art”?
I guess there is only one way to find out, which is to show it to other people and see how they respond.
*Yes: I’m afraid it’s that old problem again.