Because I can call myself a musician, despite being tone-deaf and someone that most people would pay not to sing.
By all means call yourself an artist. Or intellectual. Or diva. Just don't expect anyone else to take you at your word. (Not a personal attack, obviously).
Cheers,
Roger
No one needs to confer the status of 'artist'. I'm an artist. The propensity among makers of art to be coy about embracing the term 'artist' is cowardly.
OK, fair enough -- though someone in another, similar thread pointed out that there are dead ends which need to be explored in order to see how and why they are dead ends. It may even have been you, though I don't think it was. I suspect that our world-pictures are a lot closer than they might appear to a third party reading this exchange.
Best of all, you've made me relax or at least reconsider some of my definitions. I hope I've done the same for you.
Cheers,
Roger
That was moi'.
My apologies for not giving credit where it was greatly due.
Cheers,
Roger
OK, fair enough -- though someone in another, similar thread pointed out that there are dead ends which need to be explored in order to see how and why they are dead ends. It may even have been you, though I don't think it was. I suspect that our world-pictures are a lot closer than they might appear to a third party reading this exchange.
Best of all, you've made me relax or at least reconsider some of my definitions. I hope I've done the same for you.
Cheers,
Roger
... I believe we should be exalting in *our* artists today as we do our sports/pop hero's. The world would be a far better place if we embraced the humanities...
By all means call yourself an artist. Or intellectual. Or diva. Just don't expect anyone else to take you at your word. (Not a personal attack, obviously).
Cheers,
Roger
As for taking people at their word, by and large, I find it a constructive thing to do.
Mmmmm.... But can't this deteriorate very quickly into celebrity worship of whoever is the media darling of the moment? Is not the artist reduced to the level of Paris Hilton (see Soap Box)? The media crave simplicty, black and white, heroes and villains. I think we'd agree that art ain't like that.
I fully (and gratefully) take your other points (especially the one about participation), but with your above statement we seem to be at an interesting crossover where absolutism and relativism are identical.
Cheers,
Roger
I believe we should be exalting in *our* artists today as we do our sports/pop hero's.
A search for significance is all. Just so others will know we were here at some time in the past. If this were not the main reason then there would be no reason to sign our work or seek copyrights to protect it.
Let us agree that artistic expression has certain qualities that have held true since the beginning. The first of these is that it is an original creation of something heretofore unknown and heretofore unproduced and second that it engages both the senses and the emotions of the artist and a portion of those who may view the original work...... Your thoughts are appreciated. I would hope that this fosters a constructive dialogue...I have no interest in contentions that seek only to fortify the constructs of our egos.
I have no answers for these questions. I have only questions...but they are damned important questions to me as a human being first and foremost and subsequently of one who aspires to artistic expression.
Your thoughts are appreciated. I would hope that this fosters a constructive dialogue...I have no interest in contentions that seek only to fortify the constructs of our egos.
that is so true.For the rest —I mean, you're not "wrong", per se— one's artistic expression will only effect a portion of those who see it. I know that I'm mixing oranges with tangerines a bit, but the point is, something really isn't Art until someone —anyone other than its creator— appreciates it as such. Otherwise it's just masturbation, in the academic sense of the word.
.
that is so true.
I've nearly gone blind from producing stuff that no one gets to see and as it is I need to wash my hands in nair. It is tough to get over the arrogance of some of these folks. Just because they go to school for years, get a 'fine art' degree or two, and then spend the rest of their adult life producing stuff that they think they have the right to call art.
nothing is really "Art" until someone —anyone other than its creator— appreciates it as such. Otherwise it's just a sort of non-erotic masturbation ... something the artist made to please himself.
The creator of something has no right to call it "art". The object of one's creation become "art" only at the instant someone else is moved by it, even if that sensation is hatred.
Donald,
Since I respect the sincerity of your post, please understand in advance that my irrepressible sense of humor sometimes creeps out at inopportune moments ... like now.. Dude! You've been watching too many Ingmar Bergman films! Ok, back to seriousness. Here are some thoughts, offered as you put it in the spirit of constructive dialogue:
Basically, I in fact cannot agree that artistic expression is necessarily "an original creation of something heretofore unknown and heretofore unproduced". I would agree if you simply called it original artistic expression. I do not believe, however, that a person needs to satisfy some sort of "qualification" of pure originality in order the be seen as expressing him-or-herself.
On your second point, that "[artistic expression] engages both the senses and the emotions of the artist and a portion of those who may view the original work", I believe you're half right. Logically, artistic expression must engage the senses and emotions of the artist otherwise he would never bother picking up a camera ...or paint brush... or never feel the need to sit down to write music, jokes, stories, poems or letters (yes, I believe a letter can be artistic).
For the rest I mean, you're not "wrong", per se one's artistic expression will only effect a portion of those who see it. I know that I'm mixing oranges with tangerines a bit, but the point is, nothing is really "Art" until someone anyone other than its creator appreciates it as such. Otherwise it's just a sort of non-erotic masturbation ... something the artist made to please himself.
The creator of something has no right to call it "art". The object of one's creation become "art" only at the instant someone else is moved by it, even if that sensation is hatred. In effect, this means that artistic expression can exist without its object being called art. Think of a sculptor creating a tiny statuette which he keeps in his pocket, never to be seen by anyone else. He dies and is buried with it. It was his artistic expression, but was it "art"? Yes? How would we know? We never saw it and never will.
==============
Regarding your other questions which, again, I respect because they so obviously came from the heart: I began to answer them, one-by-one, but I stopped and erased them. Your questions, by their nature, are a bit heavy and my answers, due to their concision, were coming across as being sacastic. Still, I think you'll find value in simple answers. Zen it out.
It would be much easier if you'd come-on over to Paris and discuss this whole thing with me at the Café Flore, where Sartre used to hang out. I'll pay for the first coffee (really*). I even have one eye that wigs-out like his did ... especially when I'm tired, like now. No Gaulloise allowed after 2008 (whew... I'm a non-smoker anyway!).
Bonne nuit,
Christopher
*serious offer. E-mail me if you come. Second coffee is on you!
.
Sadly I don't see time always doing justice to the bad. It seems that many marginal, at best, artists and objects of art are given permanent residence with greater works simply because of association with a movement, period or age. Often art is marginalized because the significance of the context in time is lost or the preceding or following movement was so overwhelmingly 'better.' Some art and artists are completely glossed over because they stood alone, were out of step or followed a path that was a dead end.I partially agree with JD that time is a poor measure of great art. But I disagree in that time is indeed a good measure of bad art, or at least mediocre art. The bad art gets filtered out. And the bad art that was popular in its time gets viewed very critically by posterity (take Soviet realism, for example). Time is a better filter for bad art than it is for great art.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?