Should artists create art that is out of their realm of personal experience?
Recently, I have noticed work by artists that struck me as being dishonest. I wondered if it was because the imagery or subject matter had nothing to do with their own lives. I have thought about this for days. Does an artist have to experience their subject matter?
Hypothetical examples could include:
-A rich artist painting about poverty.
-An author who writes stories about life in Madagascar, but has never stepped out of Des Moines, Iowa.
-A male artist creating work about the struggles of women.
Then my head spins in a new direction. What about imagination? Artists use their imagination to create things imaginary or even the impossible. Without this, there wouldn't be Science Fiction or Fantasy. This contradicts one thing I learned in college. One of my writing professors told us over and over again: WRITE WHAT YOU KNOW! In some ways, I agree, but I am not sure. I guess why all this bothers me is because the art which made me think of this topic, seemed disingenuous. The lack of actual experience made me feel as if the work was more of an exercise in technique rather than a deeply felt product of familiarity or background.
Then, I start to check myself. I think of all the various bodies of work I have done over the decades. Were they from my own experiences? I started with nature: CHECK. I moved into social issues. Hmmmm. This is interesting. I did war images, but I have never been to war. I drew about death, yet I am still alive. I have done lots of gun imagery, but I don't advocate for firearms. Most recently, I have worked a lot with emotions: CHECK, CHECK, CHECK! Currently, I am doing some painting work that I don't have a clue what it is about yet. LOL Also, I have been working with photographic images about being Catholic: CHECK. So I asked myself this question and I still don't have an answer.
What do you think?