Good artists show us what we can’t yet see with our own eyes

By David McElroy · October 12, 2023

(Note: You will find a video version of this article here.)

I grew up completely ignorant about art.

I knew art existed, of course. I knew that someone painted the pretty pictures that we stuck on our walls as decorations. I even knew there were “serious” artists out there who created work that they claimed had meaning. I thought they were just pretentious charlatans.

Musical artists? They were just making commercial entertainment. Filmmakers and actors? They were just entertainers, too. And as for sculptors, I didn’t quite understand why anybody would care. It was just more decoration for those with money to waste.

The home and subculture in which I grew up was aggressively steeped in pragmatism and logic, not in meaning and mystical connections to the human spirit. At different times, I wanted to be an engineer, a lawyer and a businessman. Everything was pragmatic. Even my understanding of my Christian faith was firmly rooted in overly rational systematic theology, not in spiritual experience.

It’s taken decades, but art has slowly changed who I am. This spectacular 1936 painting by René Magritte, above, which is called “Clairvoyance,” represents my current understanding of art.

In this painting, Magritte brilliantly expressed the bold notion that a good artist shows us where we’re going before the rest of us can see it.

It wasn’t until I was 29 years old that I started the slow transformation that have led me to my current understanding of myself and my current understanding of art. I’ve written before about how I had about a year when I was in deep depression about what I was going to do with my life next — and I came to the shocking and uncomfortable conclusion that I’m an artist. Even though my mind fought against the idea, something in my heart knew that’s who I really am. (I wrote about that experience about 12 years ago.)

Because I had so little understanding of art or genuine creativity, it’s taken me years of wandering to get to the place I am now. And even now, I’m still struggling to figure out how to make the kind of art I’ve always needed to make.

I had been a writer before that, but I’d been a journalist — the sort of writer who just writes the facts in a formulaic way. I’d been a photographer, but I’d been a news photographer, shooting pictures that were designed to illustrate news and sports for community newspapers.

It was years before I could write and direct my first short film. And even after that film was an unexpected success, it’s been many more years of struggle and self-doubt to muddle my way toward taking another step toward making the art I need to make.

It was only a few days ago that I discovered this René Magritte painting, but as soon as I found it, I realized that it crystalized everything I’d come to learn about art. As I looked at this, I knew that Magritte was saying something very bold, something that could even be seen as arrogant. He was saying, “I see something that’s going to be — something that doesn’t exist yet — and I show it to you before you can see it coming.”

As soon as I saw that, I knew that’s the way I saw myself. Call it bold or arrogant or crazy, that’s what it feels like to believe you have insight into real meaning of the world — meaning that you desperately need to share.

For years now, I’ve been taking baby steps toward becoming an artist. I’ve tried to be bold enough to share my insights with a world that has no interest in hearing them — and I’ve persisted with sharing my ideas even when it seemed that nobody was listening. I’ve persisted even when it seemed that my ideas changed and meandered the more I tried to nail them down.

It was when I was 29 years old when I first admitted to myself that I believed I was an artist. For all those years since, I’ve been struggling to understand what it means to be an artist and how I could fit myself into that role. And now I feel as though the late René Magritte has taught me.

I feel as though I see where our culture is going. I see sickness and dysfunction all around me. I think I have insights about how that can be changed. And I know that I feel compelled to express these ideas, like some wild-eyed Old Testament prophet who comes out of the desert to say to the people, “Repent!”

I have to express my ideas in art. I’m compelled to make the work that can deliver such a message. How? I don’t know exactly. Books? Films? Something else? I don’t know for certain. I just know that I see where we’re going. I believe I see what’s wrong and what has to change. And I believe I had to preach this message, whether I really want to or not.

So that’s what René Magritte has taught me this week. He’s taught me what all really good art is doing. And he’s taught me that I have to figure out how to do the same thing — even if I don’t quite know how and even if it seems terribly arrogant to try.

I have something to say. I just hope I can figure out how to make art that’s good enough to express my ideas. But if I’m able to make good art, it will change me and it might even change the world. So even though René Magritte has been dead since 1967, I’m thankful that his work still exists to teach me what art really is — and how I might become a real artist.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts