The Unspeakable Subject of Art
Attention given to the artist as subject—whether as a celebrity, or as an object of pity—historically relegated the subject matter of art to the background. The subject in art was ultimately felt to be redundant, unnecessary. Later, subject matter was re-admitted to art, both by artists, and by critical observers. Nonetheless, in the meantime, something had changed. There was no going back.
Paintings "had" a subject before the painting itself was thought-of as the subject. This is now so commonly accepted as to be almost unworthy of note. Why art dispensed with subject matter is complex. Before total, or absolute, abstraction a painting without a subject would not have been seen as a painting. This seems an almost trivial distinction until realizing that with the return of the subject the painting itself remained the subject. It was both. The subject of a painting became, in effect, a subject-within-a-subject.
The admissibility once again of a subject in art is now a matter of virtually universal agreement. Indeed, the subject of a painting is usually ignored, even when the subject is the main event. The trend toward crypto-abstraction will be noted in passing. Everyone is now so accustomed to looking at a painting as a thing-in-itself, as a "Totem object," that we can find ourselves discussing a painting which has a subject -without saying one word about the subject!
Non-objective subjectivity is a paradox that favors the artist. An artist can be an incompetent painter of apples, determinedly paint apples anyway, and the result qualify as a rightful work of art (however badly it is painted). Of course there are other criteria, but if subject matter is incidental, everything is. It is the Categorical Imperative applied to art: What applies to the unit applies to the aggregate. To ask, "What, then, is not art?" -is to beg the question.
Subject, as such, is optional in art. It might well be irrelevant. And if a painting has a subject, the subject, as such, is incidental. I am aware this is circular logic. Fortunately, this expands the compass of the artistic subject in art. Let all subjects be included (and none excluded.) For the artist, the variety of possible subjects is, or should be, breathtaking. Artists are now free—and must feel free—to paint anything (or nothing) felt by the artist as worthy of attention.
These are my grounds for making bums the subject of art. With so many euphemisms for "bum" to choose from (homeless, vagrant, itinerant, etc.), I chose the most pejorative term I know for the homeless. I use it for expressive effect. Helping the distressed is not within my scope. Strong contrasts of light and dark, suffering and happiness, rich and poor, are the subject of art, of my art. The subject in art has returned, and it appears to be unwilling to leave anytime soon.