Animations
8 messages in this thread
John – Most people who create art do want to show it, but there are
artists in all media (well, most, anyway) who are creating as part of
an exploration of their interiors, which, for whatever reason, they
cannot access directly. These people use the medium as a mirror and
work out whatever they need to using art as a vehicle. They do not
need to or care to show their work. I've met one or two over the
years.
Hi David
Have you see my message to Martin Kunert regarding this "Creations For
Creator's Eyes Only" subject?
Ana
Yes, Ana, I've been following the thread. Having just gotten out of an equally
unresolvable discussion on another topic, and having been involved in the "what
is art" debates before, I decided not to jump in. My assertions have pretty
much been covered by other folks.
DT
<< My assertions have pretty much been covered by other folks. >>
People Like Joeseph Stalin and Karl Marx Eh' Comrade <g>
James
David – I totally understand what you are saying and while it may seem
contradictory I have to agree. That is the problem with blanket statements. I
hope you understood what I was saying about how even if the work is kept to
oneself it still has an influence on the person or society, however indirectly,
and as I mentioned, I subscribe to the theory of Chaos, which has been given an
analogy of " a buttefly flutters its wings in China and a hurricane is caused
off the coast of Florida ". While this is a simplistic example, when applied to
art and communication and humanity it means that even though the artist is
painting for him, herself it has an effect and like the butterfly can cause a
hurricane. Choas doesn't always work this way but the point is it can. And it
still brings me back to art representing the politics of people. Its a thin
thread sometimes but it all comes back. -JE
Yeah. At the risk of seeming to be on the other side in the discussion, I had
to jump in with that. I agree with every statement about what art is that has
been posted in this thread, with the exception of any claim that art ISN'T
something. There can be cogent arguments made that ANYthing is art. I guess I'm
inclined to believe that anything and everything is, potentially, art. I can't
put my finger on what makes the potential realized, tho'. When pre-packaged
screwdrivers were hung on a wall in the early 70's and called art, were they
not? When they were on the shelf in the hardware store, were they? When John
Cage has 10 radios playing simultaneously on different stations is it art? When
you wander down the street in the summer and hear 10 different musics coming
from people's apartments is it not? I'm hip to Chaos theory and agree with you
that EVERYthing a person creates has some influence on the entire globe,
whether the creation is "shown" or not, whether the creator considers it art or
not. All things are interdependant, as far as I'm concerned. When I was
studying/pursuing art in college in the early/mid 70's I gave up trying to
define art. The closest me and my friends ever came was when a communications
professor asserted that there must be art and not-art, otherwise we wouldn't
have the word art. Probably true, but all I know is whether I like something or
not, really. Some pieces, widely recognised as "art" suck, to me, having no
redeeming characteristics. Other stuff, that most people consider beneath
notice, I consider beautiful beyond verbal expression. All I can do to answer
the question is lift my shoulders and eyebrows… <g>
David T
David – We seem to be in total agreement, I'm not quite sure how you read it
but everything you mentioned fits in nicely as far as I'm concerned. -JE