We love great individualists and their works. Inimitable, exceptional creations, which cannot be confused with creations of anyone else, are objects of desire for audience and buyers as well as for creators themselves. Collectors most willingly buy artworks with an appropriately recognisable surname, and most artists are geared to sell their souls, just to be noticed and remembered. Of course, these are only some of the manifestations of a broader phenomenon, which involves various spheres of life, sometimes going far beyond art.
Sprouting at the beginning of the early modern period cult of a person and his/her individuality is in full blossom now. Not a vague concept of humanity, but human-person instead is the centre of attention and shapes our experiencing of the world. At the top of the value hierarchy stands ‘I myself’, through the prism of which we judge the outside world. Persons, who live their lives in consonance with their ‘self’ to the fullest, seem the most fascinating or admirable. We value special people, whose ‘self’ is different.
However, we sometimes get deceived and start to perceive manifestations of individuality, which are visible on the surface, in a detached from the totality way. Then what is external, and easy to detect can be erroneously considered the core of individuality. In such a case, we become blind to the complex fullness of the phenomenon. Therefore, I propose that we reflect on the very essence of individuality now.
The word ‘individuality’ immediately brings to mind qualities such as uniqueness, expressiveness, exceptionality. What is individual clearly distinguishes itself, is characteristic, peculiar to only one person, and thereby attracts attention. This is what our unaided eye tells us. However, after a moment of thinking, we will conclude that the above-mentioned characteristics do not exhaust the topic, merely scratching its surface. This is because individuality is first and foremost a pure, unique expression of a particular personality, and this is what exactly determines its essence and value.
So let us examine how the above conclusions relate to what in practice we consider manifestations of individualism.
We can easily see that – simplistically – there are two different patterns.
On the one hand, we observe full individuality, which is essentially natural, i.e. comes into existence somewhat organically, in a close relationship with multidimensional evolution of a particular person throughout his/her life, being its involuntary result and mirroring the depth of past experiences. It is neither something suddenly generated nor received – on the contrary, it is the outcome of a long process, which lasts until death. Such individuality evolves, changes and lives.
On the other hand, we can encounter individuality consciously (being) shaped, designed by a person. Such individuality is usually focused mostly on what is external (e.g., doing whatever it takes to be different), and therefore incomplete. It lacks depth. It is a seemingly finished work, not considered as something undergoing changes. It is an attempt to materialise someone’s vision or dreams about how they want to be seen (by others or by themselves).
The above remarks relate to various spheres of life but have an especially clear reflection in the art world. In diverse fields of art, works with characteristic individual qualities are highly valued, and an audience is often fascinated by artists’ peculiar personalities as well. For these reasons, artists many times feel pressure to distinguish themselves, what seems necessary for them to so-called succeed.
Unfortunately, part of creators and people judging art seems to concentrate only on the external aspects of this much-desired standing out. This makes many artists create their “individuality” in an artificial or even forced way, striving for their own unique “a little differently” at any cost, which would distinguish their works from the rest (>here< I have written about entwined with this issue cult of innovation). Therefore, such designed individuality is neither sincere nor genuine, does not express the real complexity of human experience. It is hollow and ephemeral as a soap bubble. Pure form devoid of authentic content.
Its creators, feeding on their egoism and narcissism, bring into the world poor works, which have only appearances of uniqueness.
Significantly, more than one excellent artist and great individualist pointed out harmfulness of excessive focusing on very own individuality by artists. For example, in the writings of Y. Klein, we can read:
“out of a desire at any cost to save their individual personalities, they kill off their spiritual individualism and thereby lose their Life!”[1]
Artists’ concentration on superficially understood individuality and attachment to it can result even in the opposite of intended effects, destroying the already existing seed of deep – spiritual – individualism.
The chase for individuality, so characteristic of 20th and 21st-century artists, was termed by J. Nowosielski, on the other hand, as “one of the greatest illnesses in contemporary art”[2]. He claimed:
“I am an opponent of creating individuality – very own individuality – programmatically, in a forced way. I am an opponent of excessive care of creating very own individuality. This is a matter, which should happen by itself, beyond a painter’s care. If a painter has individuality, then it will exist, if he does not, shaping it consciously and carefully will not help at all”[3]
This individuality, which shapes up not depending on an artist’s will, is full, authentic and natural. It is a reflection of life.
The source of authentic creative individuality resides in sincere pursuit of expressing artistic truth. Since such seeking is inherently personal and individual, there is a chance for a true and unique creative personality to emerge over the course of it. The less the artists care about their originality or lack of it then, the better for them and their work.
[1] Yves Klein, Overcoming the Problematics of Art. The Writings of Yves Klein, translated and with an introduction by Klaus Ottmann (Thompson, Conn.: Spring Publications, 2016), p. 61.
[2] Jerzy Nowosielski, Sztuka po końcu świata. Rozmowy (Kraków: Znak, 2012), p. 113. The translation is mine.
[3] Jerzy Nowosielski, Listy i zapomniane wywiady (Kraków: Znak, 2015), e-book. The translation is mine.
