Way back in 1874, a group of artists we now know as the Impressionists — including Monet and Renoir — were forced to accept that they would have to go it alone. For years they had submitted their work to the official Salon exhibitions, only to be harshly criticised, rejected, and dismissed by the juries. And when their work was accepted, it was condemned by the critics.
Why? Because their paintings, which we now treasure, didn’t fit the rules. They didn’t meet the expectations others had decided constituted “art.”
So, the group decided to break free. They organised their own exhibition in the Paris studio of the photographer Nadar, bypassing the gatekeepers who had frozen them out. It wasn’t an overnight success — it took years of exhibitions and determination to win over audiences, while critics at first fell in line with the Salon’s demand for conformity.
But they kept going. They refused to conform. And look at what their work means to us today.
So the question is: what are we really trying to do when we enter competitions and qualifications? Are we seeking to create — or to conform? To meet expectations and rules made up by layers of others who came before us?
Isn’t the suppression of creativity the very thing that disillusions us, and sometimes even drives us away from our chosen art?
Can you conform and be truly creative?
Why should you conform?
And isn’t creativity, at its heart, about innovation — a strange bedfellow for conformity?
Warm wishes
Amanda
Photographer & Anthropologist
