Who needs art today?

[phenix]

Who needs photographic art today, fine-art painting, sculpture, poetry, etc.? I mean new pieces of art. Who other than the artists themselves?
And at what price?

 

[Christopher Walrath]

See, that's the thing. True art is self serving. It has to be if it serves its purpose. Art needs to be the extenion of the participant. Otherwise it becomes people pleasing.

It takes a truly brave soul to express themselves and it takes a dedicated craftsman to learn how to do so with facility.

 

[Pinholemaster]

Would love to see two pieces of art made for every bullet manufactured. HA!

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Without art, life is flavor less and gray. Why do we cook for flavor? Why do we need new experiences? Good art isn't just pretty or self serving, but challenging. After experiencing good art, we come back to our lives with a new perspective about the world we live in. Well that's my 2 cents worth.

 

[Perry Way]

I understand the question and the sentiments behind what it took to ask it. I feel the same too many times, but I still do this stuff. Why is that? Must be love. It can't be because I'm smart. Who would dump their entire life effort into anything, blindly, and due to GAS never has money to do anything like grown up people do? I've always followed my passions. I think it is important to do so, even if nobody truly appreciates your work. You know they never will quite have the same feeling as you. Not that that is negative, it could be positive too. I get funny with my work. I print something.. I'm in optical love with it. My eyes are licking the print all over. I'm lusting it actually. Then, the wind shifts and I hate it. I don't want to see it ever again. It was "so yesterday". I'm "past that now". Whatever the excuse du jour, these are negative traits of a perfectionist who's in an endless pursuit of greatness. Nothing compares to the goal lines in one's mind. Ever.

But on the other hand, all that stuff I said could be thrown out the window by a profit minded capitalist with a lucky camera. In fact I see a successful photographer selling prints right now that look like dog sh*t. <cough> Ultimately we feed ourselves with the food we buy using money that we slave to get from hired slaves who toil under the sun for us, and where the rubber meats the road we realize we too have to participate in that madness and thats when we start asking questions, philosophical questions, as if the whole world went along some path we never got and we are behind the times struggling to understand. Obvious answers to [the] dilettantes who regurgitate mantras of the day, but we must persist this query until the grave, perhaps.

 

[Shangheye]

Who needs photographic art today, fine-art painting, sculpture, poetry, etc.? I mean new pieces of art. Who other than the artists themselves?
And at what price?

Do you seriously make photographs for other people?...I do it to keep breathing.

I don't mind if other people like how my breath smells

 

[JBrunner]

Art is happily incidental to some of my photography.

 

[Wade D]

Most great art is created to inspire the artist. Others who view it are free to either like or dislike it.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Art is happily incidental to some of my photography.

I have some of these too, but I consider them serendipity, not art. Art is a conscious process, not a lucky incident. Both can make good photographs, but there is a difference.

 

[Q.G.]

I think it entirely possible to have accidental art, to be an accidental artist.
If you say something important, something people take to their hearts, and that changes things, is it less important when it was said accidentally than if it had been said deliberately?

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

I think it entirely possible to have accidental art, to be an accidental artist.
If you say something important, something people take to their hearts, and that changes things, is it less important when it was said accidentally than if it had been said deliberately?

No, it is absolutely not less important. It can come almost subconsciously.

 

[Rick A]

Do you seriously make photographs for other people?...I do it to keep breathing.

I don't mind if other people like how my breath smells

Well said.
I only make photographs(and other forms) to satisfy MY soul. If others find it pleasing, thats incidental.

 

[SuzanneR]

Art is as important in our lives as human beings as food is. It's been our inclination to make art since the first drawings on the side of the cave. It's vital... everyone needs it, whether they make it, view it, listen to it, or consume it.

 

[Q.G.]

Absolutely.

I think the OP's question is much the same as asking who, with so much that has been said already, still needs to hear someone talk.
Or indeed, with so much food having been consumed already, who would still need to have some.

 

[arigram]

Art serves two main purposes in present societies:
- Propaganda
- Entertainment
There is also the third
- Collectible product
but that's only for the very few and mostly combines the two other main purposes.

As for higher purposes of human experience, feeling and thoughts, the spiritual advancement of humanity and so on, these are so rare occurrences that tend to be almost insignificant. Science, philosophy, art, are the only ways for humanity to advance and have a purpose for existence other than mere instinctual survival, but that's not when humans are mere resources.

I, personally, (to emphasize) have been doing what I am doing to explore life's wonders, connect with them and free my eternal demons, but I make no plans for survival or have any delusions of reaching greatness any more. So, I do what I do to make what life of my life is left. If I find that rare someone that appreciates my work, that's a surprising bonus.

 

[keithwms]

Who needs photographic art today, fine-art painting, sculpture, poetry, etc.? I mean new pieces of art. Who other than the artists themselves?
And at what price?

The artists need it the most, that is clear.

What prices are doing these days... well, I think it's a good idea to prepare for when people eventually do want to spend again.

I do it to keep breathing.

Absolutely! And not to keep eating

 

[Elias Roustom]

Who needs photographic art today, fine-art painting, sculpture, poetry, etc.? I mean new pieces of art. Who other than the artists themselves?
And at what price?

Every magazine editor, book publisher, art director, advertiser, gallery owner, art lover & collector, reader, web surfer, museum goer, thinker, and the list goes on - all these NEED fine art. It's everywhere, and to the point that we often miss it. But very creative people are working hard everyday making just about everything you see in our communication saturated world.

But maybe you mean something framed and put on a wall, that's "expressing" some esoteric, intangible yet profound secret, with a price tag under it? People need those too - and they pay good money for them.

Who buys art? Lots of people do. Every time you see a gallery do some math, and start by wondering how that business survives paying prime retail rent while keeping a mostly empty space. If it's there longer than a year or two, or if it's there for years, it's because people buy art.

 

[wclark5179]

It depends.

I'm lucky. I can make a choice. Some are struggling just to have basic things to live.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I think it entirely possible to have accidental art, to be an accidental artist.
If you say something important, something people take to their hearts, and that changes things, is it less important when it was said accidentally than if it had been said deliberately?

You might as well tie a paint brush to a donkey's tale then. If accidental counts, the poor animal will create art eventually.

Not every good picture is automatically art.

I'm not saying that an artist cannot have a lucky moment, but he or she will no doubt learn from the experience, and from that point on, it will becomes part of the artist's conscious effort to create art.

I would think that producing art is preceded by visualization.

Serendipity can be an initiator for art, but it isn't art by itself.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

...I only make photographs(and other forms) to satisfy MY soul. If others find it pleasing, thats incidental.

I'm not sure how long that lasts. An artist thrives on the appreciation of others. Visual and performing art are perfect examples of that.

If the appreciation of others is missing, self-appreciation can replace it for a while, but eventually, frustration and self-doubt takes over and the artist gives up, unless they are a true genius and totally misunderstood by the worlds around them.

This might be at the root of the OP's question, in which case I can only say:
Keep going, and make sure you know what you're doing it for (I hope it's not money or global fame).

Photography can also 'just' be a nice hobby. It doesn't have to be art, does it?

 

[Q.G.]

You might as well tie a paint brush to a donkey's tale then. If accidental counts, the poor animal will create art eventually.

I don't think so.

I also don't think that serendipity is entirely seredipitous (i also hate that word).
What we do has an origin somewhere. As Kevin mentioned, it may not be a conscious act, but an act (i.e. something that betrays intentionality) it is.


I'm not sure about the appreciation bit.
I think what you might do that would be art can be part of you trying to make sense of the world you live in. As such, it's part of a discovery process you alone are involved in.
No need to share (though us humans can't help oursleves and will anyway), or (more importantly) have others appreciate what we do.
On the other hand, other people confirming what you think you have discovered may be very usefull to help you go on.
Other people disagreeing, i.e. not appreciating what you do will too.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I don't think so.

I also don't think that serendipity is entirely seredipitous (i also hate that word).
What we do has an origin somewhere. As Kevin mentioned, it may not be a conscious act, but an act (i.e. something that betrays intentionality) it is.

We will never agree on this (and we don't have to), because our definitions of art are different. Since there is no universally agreed definition, we are all allowed to have our own. Here is mine:

Art is the conscious expression or application of creative human skill and imagination, producing aesthetic work, primarily appreciated for its beauty or emotional power by a group of people.

Nobody needs to agree with this definition, but to understand my statements about art, it helps to know where I'm coming from. What I don't have time for is people who claim that art cannot be defined, but they are constantly talk about it. How is the rest of the world suppose to know what they are talking about then?

 

[Q.G.]

We will never agree on this (and we don't have to), because our definitions of art are different. Since there is no universally agreed definition, we are all allowed to have our own. Here is mine:

Art is the conscious expression or application of creative human skill and imagination, producing aesthetic work, primarily appreciated for its beauty or emotional power by a group of people.

Nobody needs to agree with this definition, but to understand my statements about art, it helps to know where I'm coming from. What I don't have time for is people who claim that art cannot be defined, but they are constantly talk about it. How is the rest of the world suppose to know what they are talking about then?

Quite right.

I do indeed not agree with your definition entirely, because i do think that what human beings do that has significance is more than what they do consciously.
I don't believe that people are rational beings that are capable of doing things entirely consciously. On the contrary: we are mostly irrational beings, and rationality is one of the things we irrationaly like to believe in. The full significance of art, of any human expression, can only be taken in if we allow the 'less conscious' part of ourselves to grasp the irrational, unconscious and undeliberate content of art as well as the reasoned, conscious content.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

...I do indeed not agree with your definition entirely, because i do think that what human beings do that has significance is more than what they do consciously...

Then your definition of art (which I'm not aware of) apparently includes significance. I do agree that art can be significant, but significant to whom or what, the artist, others, history? Of course it's significant to the artist, otherwise, he or she would not do it. Significance to others was already declined, consequently, history will not necessarily know about it.

What's left?

 

[Q.G.]

Then your definition of art (which I'm not aware of) apparently includes significance. I do agree that art can be significant, but significant to whom or what, the artist, others, history? Of course it's significant to the artist, otherwise, he or she would not do it. Significance to others was already declined, consequently, history will not necessarily know about it.

What's left?

I assumed that (significance) as a given.
If not significant, why would it (need to) have a proper name?