Mind of an Artist?

  • #51
794
1
Fields and jobs can be dominated by people of a certain race or gender, and that doesn't mean that racism, sexism, or oppression was involved. Look at the number of African Americans in the NBA and NFL. Or the number of African Americans in jazz, R&B, or rap. Or look at the number of women in nursing. Would you also suspect that men don't get into nursing because women are the ones judging? I wouldn't be suprised if people would have thrown out the exact same explanation for why women weren't that represented in colleges back in the day. However, now for every 100 college degree men get, women get 130 - 140. How does that explanation hold? Things changed and men became less oppressive? Or how do you explain the situation now? That women are the ones doing the oppressing? Did you also know that 1/10th of 1% of the worlds population is Jewish (that's 1/1000 for you people who hate math)? But did you know that Jewish people make up 29% of the Nobel Prize winners in Science and Literature?
People always jump to conclusions of discrimination, racism, sexism, etc, when fields are dominated by white men, but never say the same when fields are dominated by anyone else. I don't know why people would expect that most fields would be a racially and sexually sample that perfectly represents the population. When this doesn't happen, it doesn't mean foul play was involved, but rather it probably arises for other cultural, social, etc, reasons.

One reason for this is that Jewish society is a matriarchal one. Some Jewish mothers 'encourage' their children to do 'more' and make something of themselves.

Most of civilization through history has been a male dominated one, and it follows through and into the arts. Just look at the 'church' male dominance for example.

Women used (male or semi-anonymous) pseudonyms in the arts and literature often as to be more 'accepted' for their works.
 
  • #52
2
0
when it comes to painting and looking back only on the last 30 alone. The majority of famous artists have been white males.

here is the starting list from famous artists in the 20th century.

Edvard Munch(Expressionist)


Gustav Klimt


Joan Miro


Marc Chagall


Henri Matisse


Odilon Redon


Pablo Picasso


Paul Klee


Raoul Dufy


Salvador Dali


Wassily Kandinsky

their list has no females -

http://www.arthistory-famousartists-paintings.com/TwentiethCenturyPainting.html[/PLAIN] [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
falc39
Shakespeare was the John Grisham of his era. nothing cosmological about it.



unless your a mind reader you can't say todays art is tied to nothing. ( although the comment of the canvass spashed with a bucket of paint is a good example of the rich with no talent being famous based on opinion by those deemed good opinions - more of who you know not what you do or know).
And you must not view alot of art . alot of religious views as well as political make it into artwork. It's the ones being banned from being shown. the artist hasn't changed.

Wow, did you really mean that comparison? Time is the only judge of what will be considered 'great'. So you seem to be implying that in the future scholars will be dissecting and quoting like mad Mr. John Grisham's novels? Is that correct? The amount of wisdom found in Shakespeare's plays is almost uncanny compared to the fast food type of literature today.

When you are talking about Shakespeare, it has a lot do with archeo-astronomy. The cosmological plane ended with Plato. Writers like Shakespeare, Dante, and Virgil were much influenced by it.

The more I read, the more I realize that people are not aware of the major paradigm shifts in art compared to then and now. Art today is bound to nothing. There are no rules. Unfortunately, my mind reading abilities were not needed here. For example, my composition teacher a year ago told me to be more creative by doing whatever I want. Letting go of rules. He is not my composition teacher anymore. Any person who knows art knows that is not creativity. Painting is not my strong area (music is more in my comfort range), but it is even apparent in painting too. Giotto's painting, around the 1300's, established the basis of modern art. What was that? It was the idea that paintings were painted to "look exactly like the thing itself". And thus, the art of painting was bound to this simple idea. Over time, this idea changed, but the point is painting was always bound to something. Is art today bound by any principle? Not really, and if so, by weak ones (again the picture of someone splashing a bucket of paint on the canvass). That is why you will not see another painter reach legendary status (male or female) for a while. There is no conspiracy trying to hold some down. The problem is 'anything' has become acceptable, thus ironically killing the creative spirit and lowering the standards of a once great art.

This is also much much more apparent in music. In the baroque era, music was bound to point toward the heavens. The spiritual ties with composers like Bach were incredible. In this era, Masses, Motets, Chorales, Fugues, all considered sacred works were king. Music was bound to Religion. This is the example of a fragment of the super-science that existed in pre-history. When Religion, art, myth, science, etc were all one, with archeo-astronomy as the time measurement. It is very powerful. Bach's contemporaries, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, shifted music but kept it bound to one thing. What was the one thing? The idea that music must imitate the human voice. The rest is history and opera became King. Anyone who has studied Mozart know his operas are by far his most important works. Chopin himself explained to his pupils that the most important aspect of playing his works was the flawless imitation of the human voice. Music thus being bound to the personal aspect of humanity in music, the human voice, led to the touching of many hearts. So now we come today and what is music bound to? Nothing, it is scattered everywhere. Anything goes basically. Creativity today is 'do whatever you want, regardless of the natural laws of rhythm, harmony, or nature itself'. Thus time, the only true judge, will not remember this era well.

Unfortunately that is why you will not see any legendary geniuses anymore (at least for a while). It is not because of gender, lack of talent, or a conspiracy. The fact that art stopped representing the universal truths is the reason why.
 
  • #54
falc39
Mozart took on female students because he was broke alot ot the time. Alot of his peers didn't. that aside.

women were taught music by and large only for entertaiment of the home not for concerts outside the home. it was part of the definition of 'feminine' .

I believe you underestimate the fire and heart of the genius. Genius don't give up, never. If someone told Beethoven or any of them that they could not do what they did or it isn't their place in life, it would just get them to try even harder. Beethoven's father told him he was a useless musician, plus he went deaf later in life, did that stop him? That's why I don't buy this "they were being held down" mantra. Genius can't be held down. If you allow yourself to be held down, then you don't have what it takes to be one. The great ones also don't blame other people for their own shortcomings or under-achievements. As I have stated earlier, it has more to do with drive than pure talent.

I also find it odd that I have given the scientific answers to the OP's question. Yet this being a scientific forum, has no comment on it, and has largely ignored it.
 
  • #55
falc39
when it comes to painting and looking back only on the last 30 alone. The majority of famous artists have been white males.

here is the starting list from famous artists in the 20th century.

Edvard Munch(Expressionist)


Gustav Klimt


Joan Miro


Marc Chagall


Henri Matisse


Odilon Redon


Pablo Picasso


Paul Klee


Raoul Dufy


Salvador Dali


Wassily Kandinsky

their list has no females -

http://www.arthistory-famousartists-paintings.com/TwentiethCenturyPainting.html
[/PLAIN] [Broken]

Dont worry, these people will not be remembered in terms of legendary status (like Michaelangelo).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
2
0
ugh

Wow, did you really mean that comparison? Time is the only judge of what will be considered 'great'. So you seem to be implying that in the future scholars will be dissecting and quoting like mad Mr. John Grisham's novels? Is that correct? The amount of wisdom found in Shakespeare's plays is almost uncanny compared to the fast food type of literature today.

you don't get it .I'm not suggesting Grisham will become another Shakespeare. I am stating that Shakespeare while alive was concidered popular , not a master. Popular and master are not synonomous.

When you are talking about Shakespeare, it has a lot do with archeo-astronomy. The cosmological plane ended with Plato. Writers like Shakespeare, Dante, and Virgil were much influenced by it.


Incredibly, most of Shakespeare’s plays had never been published in anything except pamphlet form, and were simply extant as acting scripts stored at the Globe. Only the efforts of two of Shakespeare’s company, John Heminges and Henry Condell, preserved his 36 plays (minus Pericles, the thirty-seventh) [Barnet, xvii] in the First Folio. Heminges and Condell published the plays, they said, “only to keep the memory of so worthy a friend and fellow alive as was our Shakespeare” [Chute, 133]. Theater scripts were not regarded as literary works of art, but only the basis for the performance. Plays were a popular form of entertainment for all layers of society in Shakespeare’s time, which perhaps explains why Hamlet feels compelled to instruct the traveling Players on the fine points of acting, urging them not “to split the ears of the groundlings,” nor “speak no more than is set down for them.”
http://www.enotes.com/william-shakespeare/shakespeare-biography

The more I read, the more I realize that people are not aware of the major paradigm shifts in art compared to then and now. Art today is bound to nothing. There are no rules. Unfortunately, my mind reading abilities were not needed here. For example, my composition teacher a year ago told me to be more creative by doing whatever I want. Letting go of rules. He is not my composition teacher anymore. Any person who knows art knows that is not creativity. Painting is not my strong area (music is more in my comfort range), but it is even apparent in painting too. Giotto's painting, around the 1300's, established the basis of modern art. What was that? It was the idea that paintings were painted to "look exactly like the thing itself". And thus, the art of painting was bound to this simple idea. Over time, this idea changed, but the point is painting was always bound to something. Is art today bound by any principle? Not really, and if so, by weak ones (again the picture of someone splashing a bucket of paint on the canvass). That is why you will not see another painter reach legendary status (male or female) for a while. There is no conspiracy trying to hold some down. The problem is 'anything' has become acceptable, thus ironically killing the creative spirit and lowering the standards of a once great art.

the more I read the more I'm understanding you don't get it. I'm not trying to be harsh , but as one with a degree in Fine Arts from a private established collage, I think I may know at least a bit of which I speak. What did Giotto introduce and is famous for ? Perspective , a more natural space , it's first real use and the first that led into the Italian Renaissance of painting. The idea of realism wasn't born from him. try looking to Greek and roman sculpture or even Egyptian. but he did bring the technique to use it in painting.


This is also much much more apparent in music. In the baroque era, music was bound to point toward the heavens. The spiritual ties with composers like Bach were incredible. In this era, Masses, Motets, Chorales, Fugues, all considered sacred works were king. Music was bound to Religion.

it was because a good deal of benefactors requested such religious works - this says nothing of personal taste of the artist or what they were betrothed too. . You must also bear in mind this important point - what we think of as masters were popular musicians in their day.

Music wasn't bound to just religion - nor was it if most composers could help it. It was benefactors that decided such. Most wanted to write the 'rock' of their day. But they also had to eat and pay the rent.



Throughout the Baroque period, composers continued to be employed by the church and wealthy ruling class. This system of employment was called the patronage system. As the patron paid the composer for each work and usually decided what kind of piece the composer should write, this limited their creative freedom.
Form
Dances were popular during this period as well as preludes, fugues, suites, toccatas and theme and variations. Binary and ternary forms were used frequently.

During the Classical period it became more and more possible for the public to enjoy and participate in leisure activities. Thus, in the music world, the patronage system of the Baroque began to die out and was replaced by the first public concerts where people paid to attend.
Instead of the sudden changes in style and trills of Baroque music, the music of the Classical period tended to be simple, balanced, and non-emotional. Music had straightforward titles like "Symphony No. 1" instead of flowery descriptive titles. Known as absolute music, classical works were written for their own sake, not for dancing or any other special occasion.
Form
Forms used include the minuet and trio, rondo, sonata-allegro, sonatina and theme and variations. Composers also often wrote concertos and dances.


Music saw many changes during the Romantic period
Composers expanded existing musical forms and developed new forms as a way of expressing themselves. Thus, a huge variety of instrumental and vocal music appeared on the scene. There were no restrictions on the length of a piece, the number of movements, or the number of instruments or voices used.
It was during the Romantic period that most of the band instruments came into being as they are today.
Style
Expressive personal feeling

http://www.hypermusic.ca/hist/mainmenu.html
[/PLAIN] [Broken]


This is the example of a fragment of the super-science that existed in pre-history. When Religion, art, myth, science, etc were all one, with archeo-astronomy as the time measurement. It is very powerful. Bach's contemporaries, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, shifted music but kept it bound to one thing. What was the one thing? The idea that music must imitate the human voice. The rest is history and opera became King. Anyone who has studied Mozart know his operas are by far his most important works. Chopin himself explained to his pupils that the most important aspect of playing his works was the flawless imitation of the human voice. Music thus being bound to the personal aspect of humanity in music, the human voice, led to the touching of many hearts. So now we come today and what is music bound to? Nothing, it is scattered everywhere. Anything goes basically. Creativity today is 'do whatever you want, regardless of the natural laws of rhythm, harmony, or nature itself'. Thus time, the only true judge, will not remember this era well.

and yet to Mozart his favorite works were those done for children !

Creativity today is 'do whatever you want, regardless of the natural laws of rhythm, harmony, or nature itself'.

funny that's what alot of people thought of the masters during their lifetimes.



Unfortunately that is why you will not see any legendary geniuses anymore (at least for a while). It is not because of gender, lack of talent, or a conspiracy. The fact that art stopped representing the universal truths is the reason why.

Art has never stopped revealing universal truths. It's just some can't handle the truth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #57
2
0
I believe you underestimate the fire and heart of the genius. Genius don't give up, never. If someone told Beethoven or any of them that they could not do what they did or it isn't their place in life, it would just get them to try even harder. Beethoven's father told him he was a useless musician, plus he went deaf later in life, did that stop him? That's why I don't buy this "they were being held down" mantra. Genius can't be held down. If you allow yourself to be held down, then you don't have what it takes to be one. The great ones also don't blame other people for their own shortcomings or under-achievements. As I have stated earlier, it has more to do with drive than pure talent.

I also find it odd that I have given the scientific answers to the OP's question. Yet this being a scientific forum, has no comment on it, and has largely ignored it.

who said these women gave up ? and yes they were held down. in a time when women were property basically of their husbands ?

all one has to do is the math being so called scientific.. take the 1700's for example , make a list of Genius male painters vs female. many women painted but they weren't taken seriously. 'Serious ' art was a mans game. Women who were taken seriously were considered odd and usually shunned socially.
 
  • #58
2
0
lol

Dont worry, these people will not be remembered in terms of legendary status (like Michaelangelo).


lmao ! you don't think so ? lol they already are !

I'm done. it's evident that you understand art as much as I understand chemistry - very little.

you want art to be what you want it to be - it doesn't work that way . you can't define it . agree or disagree is one thing , but art like love is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't think of crying clowns on black velvet or the Elvis on black velvet as art ....(shudder) but some like it.
 
Last edited:
  • #59
falc39
isabeau said:
you don't get it .I'm not suggesting Grisham will become another Shakespeare. I am stating that Shakespeare while alive was concidered popular , not a master. Popular and master are not synonomous.

It doesn't matter, time revealed him as the master. The sands of time is the final judge in this, not what is popular.

isabeau said:
the more I read the more I'm understanding you don't get it. I'm not trying to be harsh , but as one with a degree in Fine Arts from a private established collage, I think I may know at least a bit of which I speak. What did Giotto introduce and is famous for ? Perspective , a more natural space , it's first real use and the first that led into the Italian Renaissance of painting. The idea of realism wasn't born from him. try looking to Greek and roman sculpture or even Egyptian. but he did bring the technique to use it in painting.

Textbook answer, but it doesn't even completely refute what I said, if at all. He brought it into painting, and I'm saying it gave painting something to be bound to, more direction if you may. If it wasn't for the first two sentences, I would've thought you were supporting my case. Also, I'm not trying to be harsh, but a degree does not equal total understanding of this subject or anything close to that. Many great artists and composers did not need any formal schooling. Perhaps they just see things differently than people like us?

isabeau said:
it was because a good deal of benefactors requested such religious works - this says nothing of personal taste of the artist or what they were betrothed too. . You must also bear in mind this important point - what we think of as masters were popular musicians in their day.

Music wasn't bound to just religion - nor was it if most composers could help it. It was benefactors that decided such. Most wanted to write the 'rock' of their day. But they also had to eat and pay the rent.

Throughout the Baroque period, composers continued to be employed by the church and wealthy ruling class. This system of employment was called the patronage system. As the patron paid the composer for each work and usually decided what kind of piece the composer should write, this limited their creative freedom.
Form
Dances were popular during this period as well as preludes, fugues, suites, toccatas and theme and variations. Binary and ternary forms were used frequently.

Read any of the composer's biographies and tell me they weren't deeply religous and sought that kind of manifestation in their own works. There is no way Bach composed all that he did by force of some benefactor. He composed deeply religous works because to him that was truth. If you were to analyze any of his music, there would be so many deep and hidden religous implications that there was no way his benefactors or whoever would even know about it! (Try the Well Tempered Clavier if you want a good one). Your idea of benefactors controlling everything is directly opposite of my view where it was the artists who were driving the direction.

But again, this is the fallacy that rules and restrictions = less creativity. I beg to differ. Shakespeare held himself to strict laws. I'm guessing people like you believe he would have been more creative if he hadn't obeyed the iambic pantameter? Bach held himself to stric laws (Study his fugues and you will know what I mean). It is the ability to variate and create within strict natural laws that make art stand the test of time. A true artist uses strict rules to boost creativity while a novice blames rules for their creativity (or lack thereof).

isabeau said:
During the Classical period it became more and more possible for the public to enjoy and participate in leisure activities. Thus, in the music world, the patronage system of the Baroque began to die out and was replaced by the first public concerts where people paid to attend.
Instead of the sudden changes in style and trills of Baroque music, the music of the Classical period tended to be simple, balanced, and non-emotional. Music had straightforward titles like "Symphony No. 1" instead of flowery descriptive titles. Known as absolute music, classical works were written for their own sake, not for dancing or any other special occasion.
Form
Forms used include the minuet and trio, rondo, sonata-allegro, sonatina and theme and variations. Composers also often wrote concertos and dances.

Music saw many changes during the Romantic period
Composers expanded existing musical forms and developed new forms as a way of expressing themselves. Thus, a huge variety of instrumental and vocal music appeared on the scene. There were no restrictions on the length of a piece, the number of movements, or the number of instruments or voices used.
It was during the Romantic period that most of the band instruments came into being as they are today.
Style
Expressive personal feeling

This is completely textbook, why it leaves out Opera, I have no idea. Just goes to show how off it is. The title of the music has nothing to do with the music or if it will be remembered. Stay away from these dry textbook definitions I assure you they have no idea what the art really means. For your own sake, maybe it is better to (gasp!) study the works yourself and come up with your own ideas and thoughts.


isabeau said:
and yet to Mozart his favorite works were those done for children !

Creativity today is 'do whatever you want, regardless of the natural laws of rhythm, harmony, or nature itself'.

funny that's what alot of people thought of the masters during their lifetimes.

His favorite genre were his operas, regardless there is nothing wrong with writing for children. I don't see how we are in disagreement here. That is the definition of creativity today. I was told that by my composition professor. How else could you explain splashing a bucket of paint on a canvass and calling it art and everything else under the sun?
 
  • #60
falc39
Art has never stopped revealing universal truths. It's just some can't handle the truth.

who said these women gave up ? and yes they were held down. in a time when women were property basically of their husbands ?

all one has to do is the math being so called scientific.. take the 1700's for example , make a list of Genius male painters vs female. many women painted but they weren't taken seriously. 'Serious ' art was a mans game. Women who were taken seriously were considered odd and usually shunned socially.

Really? I can't handle the truth? I'm starting to detect major sexist agenda here. Apparently there our egos that can't accept that males and females are biologically different. Unless that is exposed, what I say will mean nothing because you will always find some excuse as to why and how that has happened. Have you ever thought that maybe you are the one that can't handle the truth? I was hoping that this being a scientific forum that I wouldn't have to write about testosterone and its effects, but maybe I do have to, just so we can answer the OP's original question...

lmao ! you don't think so ? lol they already are !

I'm done. it's evident that you understand art as much as I understand chemistry - very little.

You are partially correct, I am not a painter but a musician/composer, so my statements of painting may not always be entirely accurate. But remember, time has not really had it's final say yet, so I wouldn't be laughing so quickly.
 
  • #61
Math Is Hard
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,527
29
I was hoping that this being a scientific forum that I wouldn't have to write about testosterone and its effects, but maybe I do have to, just so we can answer the OP's original question...

What we've been discussing here, "legendary artistic ability", is a relative and subjective concept, and there's no clear way to disentangle a biological basis from social and cultural factors in the past.

I took a look for "testosterone and sexual transmutation" as you suggested earlier, and mostly found strange, crackpottish links selling books such as "SEX TRANSMUTATION:How to use SEX to "electrify" your mental powers and become a rampant creative genius!"

I'm sorry, but that sort of stuff just sets my teeth on edge. If you have references to specifically testosterone-related studies from credible sources, that might fare better in the future when supporting your posts.

From the social sciences perspective, I think things have run their course here. Thread closed.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Mind of an Artist?

Replies
12
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
934
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
4K
Top