Artists are inherently curious. They have a certain sense of curiosity and wonder about the world around them. How does the world work? Why does the world do what it does? “The world” can be anything in one’s environment, constructed or otherwise.

I think curiosity is essential for artists. If it weren’t for curiosity, artists wouldn’t be compelled to create. The very act of creation is on some level an attempt to either answer or ask a question.

I see two kinds of curiosity:

• Literal:
  An artist with literal curiosity says, “This is what I see, and I think it is interesting in some way. I am depicting the world around me in a representational or abstract manner to understand or demonstrate how the world is.”

• Emotional:
  An artist with emotional curiosity says, “I am emotionally involved with this question I have, and it is a serious confrontation for me. I’m sharing that with you whether you want to or not.”

When curiosity is carried beyond mere interest it becomes nosiness. This usually happens when the subject is emotionally charged to one or more parties, or it crosses and/or challenges certain barriers or boundaries.

An artist’s nosiness can go two ways: by intrusively invading your “space,” whether physical or emotional, or by obtrusively forcing you to look at something of the artist’s that most people would rather keep bottled up.

I think art that crosses into that emotionally charged, more personal area is more interesting and memorable.

Case in point: consider Monet’s paintings of water lillies. They are peaceful, full of curiosity about color, light, and form.

Now consider Picasso’s Guernica, which forces you to come to grips with its tortured, anguished forms of war.

Which one sticks with you?