In your opinion, what is art and who can be considered an artist?

[annominous]

Wow! You must be a real scholar I never got to finish my BA in fine arts...

I never had an opportunity to higher education when I was in the USA, so I have been trying to take advantage of that opportunity here in Australia. I enjoy research, but I don't really enjoy the regurgitation that is required in academia. Sometimes I think I want a PhD just so I can say, 'That's Dr. White Trash, to you, sir.' I think the strictly instructive regurgitation that is required for undergrad degrees will dissolve once I'm past the BA. I have been working at it for years, and am over halfway through. I'm struggling to go back to it after a year off. I enjoy scholarship, but don't like going through the restrictive motions required in the halls of academe. So, we'll see, I guess.

 

[annominous]

I thought it was bacon

Then I have 'communicated my intention to the audience' and 'given the audience an opportunity to explore the juxtaposition of meat with the materiality of the stockings. The placement of the stockings alludes to stockinged legs crossed, which nuances an underlying Feminist theme. The correlation of 'meat' with a woman's undergarment implicates an underlying critique of gendered cultural norms and the objectification of women.' <- That's what I call 'artwank', and to the capital-A Art world, that is what makes something 'Art'. Ridiculous.

(ed: But that is what the capital-A Art world calls 'the language of the discipline.')

 

[epath13]

Then I have 'communicated my intention to the audience' and 'given the audience an opportunity to explore the juxtaposition of meat with the materiality of the stockings. The placement of the stockings alludes to stockinged legs crossed, which nuances an underlying Feminist theme. The correlation of 'meat' with a woman's undergarment implicates an underlying critique of gendered cultural norms and the objectification of women.' <- That's what I call 'artwank', and to the capital-A Art world, that is what makes something 'Art'. Ridiculous.

(ed: But that is what the capital-A Art world calls 'the language of the discipline.')

Well... at least you are going to have some leverage when you write your own book about all the "ridiculousness" use your powers of education to do some good
Despite of my degree I have and will always be an amateur, I'm not sure if it's a good thing if I want to be respected by all the high-hats but I feel that's all
I have energy for: to be an amateur weirdo. As long as public can find something to enjoy and connect to, it should be fine. and you never know, maybe one day my works will end up in some museum [emoji12] [emoji5] that's my afterlife dream

 

[annominous]

That would be fantastic!

 

[musclecarman]

I personally think it is anyone who has a creative mind and the ability to put their thoughts onto an object or movement.

 

[watersprite]

Here comes another "dead" thread but, anyway, I'm curious what you guys think.
I grew up in a family with a professional artist. I've been around art all my life. I have been tought that "real" artists know the theory and can draw anything if they want to. I was working on still-life, landscapes, portraits (not from photos) since I was little, later I switched to abstract, mostly because I felt I couldn't express myself strongly enough through realistic painting. I have learned theory over and over, I've drawn hundreds of works but I still feel like a fraud. And one of the reasons is because I always feel, I can do better... maybe because of anxiety, partially cause by my weird memory issues (I've mentioned it in a different post, don't want to repeat myself) and sensory issues (on good days I suddenly draw perfectly well, on bad days I feel like my hands are shaking or I have... sort of like... electric charge going through them, holding a pen etc. becomes too overwhelming) I feel like can't draw at all. But besides the point, I see so many amazing artists, they work is an example of perfection. And then I also see people who's work seem to be a little childish (and not on purpose). There's also the 3rd type, their works are not always perfect but there's incredible "soul" in their art, and people who have an eye for harmony or collectors may want to buy pieces made by them because it would be appreciated one day. I don't see that kind of art very frequently. It has incredible depth to it. I'm sure every artist want to be the 3rd type, some may want to be the 1st type, some may be satisfied with being the 2nd, but the 3rd will always matter the most in the end. I also believe that unfortunately an artist (in most cases) can't be his or her own judge.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say, that sometimes it's a little confusing to me. It seems now, with the growth of social media, anyone can call themselves an artist, so in the end the word itself almost looses it's meaning, because everybody is an artist now and there's nothing special about the word anymore. What do you think?

While I hope to continue to consider myself an artist, at the same time I struggle with these same ideas. A famous and very successful artist once told me to simply keep working every day on (one's) art, to also write every day about the art and what is going on for (you) concerning art and life, and get ego out of the way. Over-thinking the work one does can bring the work to a halt. (Boy oh boy do I know that one). So, in my small way I am making a path with "3rd type" as what I ask to be. My painting and drawings are each a question, each a statement, and are my life. Is that art? Am I an artist? I do not know but I work on my skills for what it's worth. The hardest part of working - I mean painting and drawing - for me is allowing it life, value, love, passion, meaning. I can't put meaning there. I can't explain it for buyers, or justify it to others, or even be happy with how it looks 99% of the time. But it lives, until I die anyway.
Here is a quote I found that I like: (Glenn Gould)
"
'"The justification of art is the internal combustion it ignites in the hearts of men and not its shallow, externalized, public manifestations. The purpose of art is not the release of a momentary ejection of adrenaline but is, rather, the gradual, lifelong construction of a state of wonder and serenity." - G.G.,
- A 1962 quote often used to summarize Gould's perspective on art."'

 

[Etzelaire]

Art is a personal subjective perception of an individual who thinks that ANYTHING whatever it may be cleverly embodies a motif appealing to him/her.

 

[watersprite]

Art is only sourced from the 'need' that is referred to in the quote? Can the melancholy become too intense so that it destroys the potential for art?
“Freedom is only to be found where there is burden to be shouldered. In creative achievements this burden always represents an imperative and a need that weighs heavily upon man’s mood, so that he comes to be in a mood of melancholy. All creative action resides in a mood of melancholy, whether we are clearly aware of the fact or not, whether we speak at length about it or not. All creative action resides in a mood of melancholy, but this is not to say that everyone in a melancholy mood is creative.” — Heidegger

 

[On the Inside]

Art is only sourced from the 'need' that is referred to in the quote? Can the melancholy become too intense so that it destroys the potential for art?

Wow, that last sentence is a ton of bricks. I'm going to run off some thoughts.

Considering a simple definition of melancholy, pensive sadness, to me this a balance, although not a static balance, between the two. The two together in balance make a state of transformation possible. Sadness, from missed chances, losses, wishes and hopes unfulfilled, to me create a longing and longing is hope for some change. Pensiveness, deep, serious thought, wistfully thoughtful, all bring to mind conscious, engaged attention to some problem, idea, dream, all these are also related to some hoped for change. Change and transformation require movement, whether physical, mental, philosophical, emotional and when those things start to change creation and expression are possible. Then there is the need for desire, what do you want to happen? what will you create?

That to me is a whole lot of potential energy, and if it becomes imbalanced, could lead to the destruction of the potential for art, or any creativity. Creation is change, but that transformation is not always constructive, or directed, it can be destructive, laying waste to what once was, leaving some new condition, or environment. I know that I have destroyed many creative paths with over thinking, getting bogged down in willing something that I really had no idea how to express. Deep thought was directed at the sadness, and they both fed off each other, eventually expiring, confusion. I have taken a long break from any intentional, deliberate artistic exploration and am waiting on a time, a space, an environment, a frame of mind where I can simply create, without the burden and struggle between thoughts, ideas, desires and let what happens come to fruition.

So, to summarize, yes I think melancholy can be too intense for any creative potential to exist. That is what the last line of the Heidegger quote is saying, right?

 

[Aspergirl4hire]

kestrel's post set me off with a Monty Python earworm: "Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable; Heidegger, Heidegger, was a filthy beggar who could drink you under the table; David Hume could outconsume..."

Heidegger is not one my favorite among philosophers, because I think he got it exactly wrong: the melancholy is after the creative effort, not before, in my experience. In major depressive episodes, I've been so melancholy that my hobbies changed completely because my energy field is so out of whack. Creative action welcomes possibility and play; how does that accord with melancholy? Did he assume that the solitude that creative genius depends on was necessarily sad? Or was he thinking of his own creativity?

I don't think his last line means melancholy prevents creativity. "All creative action resides in a mood of melancholy, but this is not to say that everyone in a melancholy mood is creative.” I think he thinks melancholy helps creativity, but it won't necessarily make you creative.

 

[ancusmitis]

kestrel's post set me off with a Monty Python earworm: "Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable; Heidegger, Heidegger, was a filthy beggar who could drink you under the table; David Hume could outconsume..."

Heidegger is not one my favorite among philosophers, because I think he got it exactly wrong: the melancholy is after the creative effort, not before, in my experience. In major depressive episodes, I've been so melancholy that my hobbies changed completely because my energy field is so out of whack. Creative action welcomes possibility and play; how does that accord with melancholy? Did he assume that the solitude that creative genius depends on was necessarily sad? Or was he thinking of his own creativity?

I don't think his last line means melancholy prevents creativity. "All creative action resides in a mood of melancholy, but this is not to say that everyone in a melancholy mood is creative.” I think he thinks melancholy helps creativity, but it won't necessarily make you creative.

I see a lot of people who say things like "art is my drug." Ditto "music is my drug." Don't see that with books very much; the same sentiment is there, but it's frequently a lot wordier :lol:.

I think that for some people, creative expression is available as a means of turning away from melancholy or other disruptive moods, rather than necessarily a default means of dealing with them. In some ways, and for some people, it can be helpful as a way of expressing it, but at the same time there are so many other things that can be expressed that to stereotype "art" as synonymous with "suffering" would rob us of the majority of creative works that we might otherwise enjoy.

 

[On the Inside]

I am by no means saying that melancholy is necessary for creative expression, that would probably lead to nothing but heavy, overwrought slabs of serious expression. Art and suffering, not so fun to be around all the time. I was just saying that melancholy, from it's basic constituent parts can lead to a desire for change, of transformation, leading to creativity.

And I certainly wasn't saying that melancholy prevents creativity, but if it is imbalanced, or the melancholic is thwarted in their expression, it can fold in on itself, tying one's creativity in knots. Offering an answer to kestrel's question "Can the melancholy become too intense so that it destroys the potential for art?" I'm saying yes, one would probably call that depression. I don't agree with Heidegger either. Not all creativity resides in melancholy. A good deal of it may have nothing to do with it whatsoever, I know some of my own creative experiences didn't reside or spring from there, rather from a spirit of "possibility and play". But a lot of it has, that's my burden.

I too have felt the melancholy of completing a piece, or a series, or participating in some event. It's kind of like the end of a vacation, glad you went, but where did it get you? Your left to clean up the scraps, and the cycle begins anew. So in that way, melancholy would lead to more creativity.

 

[watersprite]

Aspergirl4hire ancusmitis On the Inside For me, unless I am mistaken, (misjudge my work from being too close to it) my best creativity has sprung from joy at completing a circuit of understanding about something I'd been struggling with. The struggle, through some gift of my brain's functioning, becomes play, becomes fun, in the same way one's legs suddenly find their energy after warming up on a run. I tease out pathways towards each other like the transcontinental railroad extending west and east until they met. Where the connection lies, there is the abstract image, waiting to be painted.

It does not always work that smoothly though!

 

[Tom]

The best description of art I have heard was George Carlin's. He said it was nailing together two things that have never been nailed together before.

 

[ancusmitis]

The best description of art I have heard was George Carlin's. He said it was nailing together two things that have never been nailed together before.

 

[watersprite]

ancusmitis Looked at from the monty python point of view it is actually totally ridiculous that I try to paint at all. This conversation took me somewhere I didn't expect. But that was the risk inherent in exposing my thoughts.

I think I see how now it is time for me to take a break from painting.

 

[watersprite]

I've been meditating for about... 2 hours... seems like a long time I just needed to get some answers. So during the meditation, while I was "receiving" the answers to my questions I heard this (I thought it would be appropriate for this thread ) :

You shouldn't reinvent anything. You should struggle through it. You see the light in the end on the tunnel? Grab it! Throw it on the canvas! Squeeze it and slap it, love it until there's no fluidity in it any more. Make it solid! Make it into a word! Don't try to make a conventional dish: some potatoes with some gravy - done, make it love you as much as you love it. Make it torture you until you want to scream in amazement. That's Art. That's coming ALIVE out of a deadly storm. Be it!
​

This is what seems most authentic. When I can't access that, it seems like a stim to be painting or drawing. But maybe it is worthwhile as it keeps the hands and brain engaged in the process. can a stim be a special interest? Does that invalidate the work which results?

 

[Tom]

More seriously, for me it is both a enjoyable activity and a form of communication.

 

[On the Inside]

I've tried to consider creative work as practice, until something arises in the work that suggests it is going in a special direction. It's hard to keep at something when things aren't going smoothly, but it is building something, skills, perception, or just practicing being "not so good today". That's hard to do. Might not be a day to risk fouling up a bigger piece your working on, but make something out of cardboard. Maybe it's a stim, I doodle as a stim and they can sometimes become something beyond a doodle. Most of the time, it is from the same set of forms I draw all the time, they take me somewhere else, and it's a good place. I'll just recycle the paper, but that doesn't invalidate the effort.

As a long time endurance athlete and meditator, I have become used to the days where energy is low, determination isn't there, those days are days when you scrap the 4 hour training ride and bike to the doughnut shop with your riding buddy. You let your thoughts wander on a longer leash, and save the concentrated effort for another day. Don't force it, use it to restore something you've let run low. Be in it for the long haul.

 

[ancusmitis]

ancusmitis Looked at from the monty python point of view it is actually totally ridiculous that I try to paint at all. This conversation took me somewhere I didn't expect. But that was the risk inherent in exposing my thoughts.

I think I see how now it is time for me to take a break from painting.

I'm sorry. I didn't really mean to say that. I was just trying to be silly.