When the Mona Lisa was stolen from the louvre museum in paris in 1911

[zoobyshoe]

If you don't want to answer, fine. I'm not even arguing about your answers - I'm just trying to figure out what your answers are. You don't need to give any support or explanation - a simple yes, no, or sometimes is all that I want.

Phrasing the quetion this way makes it an improper question. The correct response to the question "Should originality be among an artist's goals?" is not one of three, one word choices.

My feelings about originality and artists are clear by now. I have been addressing the best proper questions I can see lurking behind all the improper quetions you have been posing. I don't think you will arrive at a good answer until you get some insight into the impropriety of your questions; questions that strangely allow for plagiarism to be confused with lack of originality, and that present choices of two or three, one word answers, to issues that require much more than that to adequately address.

I can't answer Yes, No or, Sometimes, and also be giving a correct answer. I have to say it like this: In general, artists don't have to have originality as a goal; it will arise naturally from their simply being authentic to their own aesthetics. Some artists may have to adopt it as a goal if they happen to have an unfortunate proclivity for imitating other artists. Those are special cases, though. Also, all artists should think in terms of being original when it come to the issue of repeating themselves: they should strive to break new ground vis a via what they, themselves, have already done, to avoid stagnation and treading water.

 

[zoobyshoe]

"The art forger you mentioned, of course, isn't a plagiarist, he's a forger."
And some of the best forgers should actually be regarded as artists, IMO.

I saw a TV special about an art forger a few years back and it may be the one mentioned by TSA. In any event, he was superb at it.

It seems to me that it has to take a great deal more skill to exactly reproduce a given masterwork than it would to create an original painting working from the comfort of your own style, so I couldn't really understand why the man didn't try becoming an artist in his own right: he could, apparently, have painted anything he wanted in any style from photorealism to abstract. Was he really, really addicted to the thrill of the "con"? Or did he just draw an insurmountable blank when it came to the notion of expressing any personal vision of things? I couldn't understand it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I saw a TV special about an art forger a few years back and it may be the one mentioned by TSA. In any event, he was superb at it.

It seems to me that it has to take a great deal more skill to exactly reproduce a given masterwork than it would to create an original painting working from the comfort of your own style, so I couldn't really understand why the man didn't try becoming an artist in his own right: he could, apparently, have painted anything he wanted in any style from photorealism to abstract. Was he really, really addicted to the thrill of the "con"? Or did he just draw an insurmountable blank when it came to the notion of expressing any personal vision of things? I couldn't understand it.

If it is the same forger, Elmyr de Hory, then apparently he had accidentally stumbled into doing fogeries when he sold a copy of a Picasso he had painted and the buyer had believed it was the real thing. He had tried to start painting his own work but found that he couldn't sell it so he went back to painting forgeries. At the end of his career he tried painting his own work again but made little profit. Even a good painter isn't going to be able to fetch the price for their paintings that a Picasso or a Matisse can.

 

[honestrosewater]

Phrasing the quetion this way makes it an improper question. The correct response to the question "Should originality be among an artist's goals?" is not one of three, one word choices.

My feelings about originality and artists are clear by now. I have been addressing the best proper questions I can see lurking behind all the improper quetions you have been posing. I don't think you will arrive at a good answer until you get some insight into the impropriety of your questions; questions that strangely allow for plagiarism to be confused with lack of originality,

I was never talking about plagiarism; You took my example to be about plagiarism, but I didn't want to keep getting sidetracked, so I let it go. My example was about two people presenting the same idea in the same way, purely by coincidence.

and that present choices of two or three, one word answers, to issues that require much more than that to adequately address.

Okay, I wasn't trying to back you into a corner or anything - I specifically said that I wasn't necessarily asking for an adequate address. I realize that a one-word answer might not provide enough detail about your opinion, but your explanations confused me, so I was trying get to the bottom of things. It doesn't look like I'm going to get much further with that, so I'll just drop it.
But I still don't think my questions are improper. Whatever your opinion is, I think it must fall under at least one of the answers. For each individual case, either originality is a goal or originality is not a goal. For all cases combined, originality is a goal in either all, some, or none of them. What are the options not covered by 'is or is not' and 'all, some, or none'?

I can't answer Yes, No or, Sometimes, and also be giving a correct answer. I have to say it like this: In general, artists don't have to have originality as a goal; it will arise naturally from their simply being authentic to their own aesthetics. Some artists may have to adopt it as a goal if they happen to have an unfortunate proclivity for imitating other artists. Those are special cases, though. Also, all artists should think in terms of being original when it come to the issue of repeating themselves: they should strive to break new ground vis a via what they, themselves, have already done, to avoid stagnation and treading water.

Just to show what I mean, from this last explanation, it seems your answers would be:
Do you think originality should be among an artist's goals? Sometimes.
If originality is among an artist's goals, do you think an artist needs to make a conscious effort to achieve that goal? Sometimes.
I understand how a 'sometimes' answer begs further explanation. I was just trying to get past that first step.
And BTW, it initially seemed like your answer to both quesitons could have been 'no', so I think we've made some progress despite our communication problems.

 

[arildno]

But, hrw, wouldn't you say that in as much as an artist is dissatisfied if thinks his work unoriginal, then we could say that it is precisely because it isn't HIS individuality he's managed to express, it is someone else's (i.e, the previous artist)?
That is, he has not lived up to his own standard of authenticity..

 

[honestrosewater]

But, hrw, wouldn't you say that in as much as an artist is dissatisfied if thinks his work unoriginal, then we could say that it is precisely because it isn't HIS individuality he's managed to express, it is someone else's (i.e, the previous artist)?
That is, he has not lived up to his own standard of authenticity..

I guess that could happen. There are situations where originality and authenticity conflict, but I'm not sure what specifically you're thinking of.

It can happen that two people are just very similar; They have the same beliefs, opinions, tastes, etc. I feel this way about another writer. If my only goal were to be authentic, I might be perfectly content creating work that happened to be very similar to this other writer's, i.e., containing nothing really new, because I know that I'm just being 'true to myself', to who I am at the moment. But I don't write only for myself or only for the moment - I have a wider audience in mind. So I have to think about what would benefit my intended audience, myself included. What good am I doing if I just give them what they already have, if I don't give them anything new? This is where my conflict lies - in being true to myself and still creating something that my audience needs, something that doesn't already exist, something better than what already exists. Being authentic and original are equally important to me - the whole struggle is trying to not sacrifice one for the sake of the other. This is what drives and feeds me, exhausts me at times but ultimately makes me grow. This effort to make real progress is what I was trying to get across before and what I think Hemingway is talking about.

How simple the writing of literature would be if it were only necessary to write in another way what has been well written. It is because we have had such great writers in the past that a writer is driven far out past where he can go, out to where no one can help him.

 

[arildno]

I guess that could happen. There are situations where originality and authenticity conflict, but I'm not sure what specifically you're thinking of.

It can happen that two people are just very similar; They have the same beliefs, opinions, tastes, etc. I feel this way about another writer. If my only goal were to be authentic, I might be perfectly content creating work that happened to be very similar to this other writer's, i.e., containing nothing really new, because I know that I'm just being 'true to myself', to who I am at the moment. But I don't write only for myself or only for the moment - I have a wider audience in mind. So I have to think about what would benefit my intended audience, myself included. What good am I doing if I just give them what they already have, if I don't give them anything new? This is where my conflict lies - in being true to myself and still creating something that my audience needs, something that doesn't already exist, something better than what already exists. Being authentic and original are equally important to me - the whole struggle is trying to not sacrifice one for the sake of the other. This is what drives and feeds me and makes me grow.

I guess we're sorting discussing this more because we associate different nuances with our concepts than with very deep disagreement.

What I find is so easily a tendency in the "originality search", is that the end product seems contrived, as if merely designed on purpose distinct from other art works.

While in earlier times, when most art was made in order to please the tastes of the super-rich&powerful (like the Medici's), and hence, slavishly followed in certain conventions with the artist rarely daring to stake out his own path, I now feel that the pendulum has swung too much in the other direction, in that artists seem to fear as if they do not do something shocking, or utterly weird&contrived, then they will simply not be noticed.

This wasn't much of a reply, I guess, rather a hasty jotting of some disconnected thoughts..

 

[honestrosewater]

I guess we're sorting discussing this more because we associate different nuances with our concepts than with very deep disagreement.

Yeah, I think so too. Asking you guys questions didn't work out so well, so I'm switching to just explaining my opinion.

What I find is so easily a tendency in the "originality search", is that the end product seems contrived, as if merely designed on purpose distinct from other art works.

While in earlier times, when most art was made in order to please the tastes of the super-rich&powerful (like the Medici's), and hence, slavishly followed in certain conventions with the artist rarely daring to stake out his own path, I now feel that the pendulum has swung too much in the other direction, in that artists seem to fear as if they do not do something shocking, or utterly weird&contrived, then they will simply not be noticed.

This wasn't much of a reply, I guess, rather a hasty jotting of some disconnected thoughts..

I understand. I don't see the point in doing what hasn't been done. I want to do something that needs to be done. Maybe there's a lesson that has already been taught but that needs to be presented in a way that more people will want to learn it. Maybe there's some new problem that needs to be addressed. I may have more social freedoms, so I can make explicit what others had to imply. Maybe there's a great story out there that people don't want to read because it's presentation is antiquated or not to their taste. Giving old stories a facelift is another possibility. It doesn't need to be absolutely new - just new to its audience.

For example, say I want to write a story about addiction - addiction in general, of any form. Some people might identify strongly with addiction to alcohol or some kind of drug, while others may not identify with this at all. Maybe this other group would identify with an addiction to achievement and recognition, to having to please everyone and be the best. Though they would both be the same basic story, with the same basic message, I would consider them different in the way that matters - they are valuable to and meet the needs of different people. Does that make sense?

I might like to see a new Hamlet with Hamlet as a woman. I don't mean just a superficial change of sex; If Hamlet really were a woman, the story could change in meaningful ways. I don't know exactly what would change, but I've thought a little about it before. Imagine keeping everyone else the same sex. How would Hamlet's relationship with Horatio and Ophelia change if Hamlet were a woman? His relationship with his mother, father, and stepfather? I would like to do this and see how few changes I could get away with while still making the changes worthwhile. Actually, I think I'll resurrect this project.
Oh, wait, I forgot the most important part: How much would you pay to see the newest film adaptation, Hamlet, Princess of Denmark?

 

[arildno]

I want to do something that needs to be done. Maybe there's a lesson that has already been taught but that needs to be presented in a way that more people will want to learn it. Maybe there's some new problem that needs to be addressed. I may have more social freedoms, so I can make explicit what others had to imply. Maybe there's a great story out there that people don't want to read because it's presentation is antiquated or not to their taste. Giving old stories a facelift is another possibility. It doesn't need to be absolutely new - just new to its audience.

Perhaps most of all, it should be a story YOU need to tell, because you identify with the issues there?

For example, say I want to write a story about addiction - addiction in general, of any form. Some people might identify strongly with addiction to alcohol or some kind of drug, while others may not identify with this at all. Maybe this other group would identify with an addiction to achievement and recognition, to having to please everyone and be the best. Though they would both be the same basic story, with the same basic message, I would consider them different in the way that matters - they are valuable to and meet the needs of different people. Does that make sense?

Yes, it does.

I might like to see a new Hamlet with Hamlet as a woman. I don't mean just a superficial change of sex; If Hamlet really were a woman, the story could change in meaningful ways. I don't know exactly what would change, but I've thought a little about it before. Imagine keeping everyone else the same sex. How would Hamlet's relationship with Horatio and Ophelia change if Hamlet were a woman? His relationship with his mother, father, and stepfather? I would like to do this and see how few changes I could get away with while still making the changes worthwhile. Actually, I think I'll resurrect this project.
Oh, wait, I forgot the most important part: How much would you pay to see the newest film adaptation, Hamlet, Princess of Denmark?

Could be interesting; I enjoyed, for example, Akira Kurosawa's adaptations of Shakespeare's plays (like Ran).

Besides, I've always wanted Hamlet to horate someone..

 

[honestrosewater]

Perhaps most of all, it should be a story YOU need to tell, because you identify with the issues there?

Absolutely. Er, the two goals still being equal. ;)

Could be interesting; I enjoyed, for example, Akira Kurosawa's adaptations of Shakespeare's plays (like Ran).

Oh, I've never heard of him(?). Ah, Ran is Lear with sons, I see. I've been trying to get people to read or watch Shakespeare for years - and I almost always fail! The biggest complaint is that they don't understand the language - I didn't understand much of it at first either. A close second is that it's not relevant to their modern lives - if only they'd give it a chance! I think I've solved both problems, but it's really difficult to explain - it's a vision ;) Hamlet is crammed full of visual imagery, and I'm going to take full advantage of it. Now, I swear there was a begging for money thread around here somewhere...

Besides, I've always wanted Hamlet to horate someone..

Haven't we all.

 

[arildno]

Oh, I've never heard of him(?). Ah, Ran is Lear with sons, I see. I've been trying to get people to read or watch Shakespeare for years - and I almost always fail! The biggest complaint is that they don't understand the language - I didn't understand much of it at first either. A close second is that it's not relevant to their modern lives - if only they'd give it a chance! I think I've solved both problems, but it's really difficult to explain - it's a vision ;) Hamlet is crammed full of visual imagery, and I'm going to take full advantage of it. Now, I swear there was a begging for money thread around here somewhere...

You don't need to try to get me to read Shakespeare; I do so on my own regularly.

 

[wolram]

What is so good about WS, he was a cider soaked poacher.

 

[honestrosewater]

What is so good about WS, he was a cider soaked poacher.

Is this a story about him poaching deer or something?

 

[arildno]

He shook his spear, threw it and killed a deer??
Or:
He loaded his gun, just for fun, shot, and narrowly missed a nun??
(Was she on the way to a nunnery?)

 

[wolram]

Is this a story about him poaching deer or something?

A parliment member, a justice of peace
at home a poor scarecrow, at London an asse;
If lousie is Lucy, as some folk miscalle it,
Then Lucy is lousie, whatever befalle it.
He thinks himself greate,
yet an asse in his state
we allowe by his eares but with asses to mate:
If Lucy is lousie, as some folk miscalle it,
Sing lousie Lucy, whatever befalle it

Yes and his revenge.

 

[arildno]

..but with asses to mate:

Eeh? ..

 

[wolram]

Eeh? ..

He probably wrote that while under the influence, there are many folk lore
tales about his visits to orchards and cider drinking, he was a bad lad.

 

[arildno]

he was a bad lad.

He wrote beautiful sonnets, though..

 

[wolram]

He wrote beautiful sonnets, though..

Yep, quill in one hand and a tankard of cider in tother.

 

[lunarmansion]

Art-architecture, music, the fine arts- is a reflection of the spirit and culture of the times. I also cannot understand a great deal of modern art such as "abstract expressionism" , but am reluctant to place a value judgment. The paucity of art in our times says not so much about the artists but rather the fragmented nature of modern day civ. A style does become exhausted for the time-unless, to take the example I have seen in art history with regard to chinese painting, old styles are revived and kept alive for hundreds of years.

 

[nannoh]

What do people see in modern art? if a painting can be hung upside down
and no one notices, how can it have meaning?

The meaning is that the art is adaptable to poor handling. If it retains a pleasing and controversial composition when its upside down that means its a piece of art that works well with any outfit!

It is also a fact that the human eye sees the world upside down until the brain takes the visual stimulus and turns it rightside up. The painting hung upside down is displayed in a manner that is actually truer to our mechanism of perception than when hung rightside up. It also shows versitility to the point of sustaining its function as art in an anti-grav environment.

 

[grafica]

hai
manytime in modern art i don't understand as what it actually means to

 

[tormund]

hey, if it looks good on skin, its good to me

 

[baywax]

In my opinion, the arts went downhill when artists started scoffing the idea that art should be pleasurable to the senses, and mistakenly started believing that, instead, the task of art was to convey the deepest philosophical "truths" about mankind.

Well then, you might confine your viewing of art to Pokemon cartoons and disney fantasies and let the real manly/womanly artists continue their trade without your viewership eh wot?!

 

[Dadface]

I looked at a picture yesterday.

A modern artist is one who throws paint on a canvas,wipes it off with a cloth and sells the cloth.......anon

Modern art is when you buy a picture to cover a hole in a wall,and then decide the hole looks much better......anon

 

[wolram]

I think modern art is just for suggestible people, the people who can see things in ink blots,
i can look at an ink blot for ages and not see any thing other than an ink blot, others imagine things for the life of me i can see.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I think modern art is just for suggestible people, the people who can see things in ink blots,
i can look at an ink blot for ages and not see any thing other than an ink blot, others imagine things for the life of me i can see.

Art is the stuff that civilizations leave behind which later civilizations notice.

 

[baywax]

Art is the stuff that civilizations leave behind which later civilizations notice.

That's definitely one of the effects of having a culture that produces art. The art becomes an historic account of their culture.

When you take Art History, that's the main point of many of the lecturers. Learning history through the eyes of a civilization's artists. Sometimes they're artists that the state has hired and sometimes they're artists who are independent. For instance Goya painted the atrocities enacted by the Spanish government upon its citizens during his time. If he was employed by the government he would have either been muzzled into painting pretty pictures of the King/Queen's children or he would have been killed.

Sometimes the artwork of a culture can tell us more about it than any written history will do. This is because written works can be edited and re-written to reflect someone's idea of a better view of the times. Whereas, a sculpture can only be destroyed or disfigured and a painting similarly so... but this is rare because art commands far more respect than the written word. It was only when a ruler was displaced that their image would be destroyed or replaced with the next. Even during the 2nd world war much of the art work that railed against the Fascists was never destroyed but was stolen, stashed then retrieved by the allies upon the defeat of the aggressors.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

That's definitely one of the effects of having a culture that produces art. The art becomes an historic account of their culture.

Yes. Art sends a message about the creator of the art and the world she or he lives in. It can be a subtle message appealing to our emotions, aesthetic sense or to the intellect (or any combination). That's why I wonder about some "modern" art. What's the message in a block of wood with nail in it, or paint thrown on a canvas by the artist or by chimpanzees? I've seen both in art galleries along with other examples that I doubt would attract any attention whatsoever from those who might follow us. It's not that they would think it's bad art or that they'd think we were all crazy. I think they wouldn't notice it at all.

 

[baywax]

Yes. Art sends a message about the creator of the art and the world she or he lives in. It can be a subtle message appealing to our emotions, aesthetic sense or to the intellect (or any combination). That's why I wonder about some "modern" art. What's the message in a block of wood with nail in it, or paint thrown on a canvas by the artist or by chimpanzees? I've seen both in art galleries along with other examples that I doubt would attract any attention whatsoever from those who might follow us. It's not that they would think it's bad art or that they'd think we were all crazy. I think they wouldn't notice it at all.

These "modern works" are the expressions of artists. If du Champs urinal was found in 3065 AD all it would say about the American immigrated culture of the 1950s would be that we had an integrated waste disposal method. There would be none of the Dadaist philosophy conveyed by his "work of art". It is a statement about the times but the statement is lost with the passage of time and the progress of art itself.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

These "modern works" are the expressions of artists. If du Champs urinal was found in 3065 AD all it would say about the American immigrated culture of the 1950s would be that we had an integrated waste disposal method. There would be none of the Dadaist philosophy conveyed by his "work of art". It is a statement about the times but the statement is lost with the passage of time and the progress of art itself.

My examples were in reference to some modern art. I don't categorically deny that much modern art could be of interest to future civilizations. Moreover, art is not restricted to paintings and sculptures. Wherever we have some freedom of design, we can have art. It can be functional. It doesn't have to be decorative in the usual sense. However, by using the word "stuff", I'm not talking about ideas, literature or necessarily the media that conveys those ideas. There are many art forms that aren't things that you hold in your hand or place in your home (music, dance forms, etc). I'm really taking the more narrow definition of art that has been the subject of this thread; that is, "stuff" that future archeologists might find or that is otherwise preserved for future generations. I don't think a future archeologist would take notice of a block of wood with a nail in it.

 

[baywax]

I don't think a future archeologist would take notice of a block of wood with a nail in it.

Not unless its price tag of $17,500 USD survived the eons stuck to its underbelly.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Not unless its price tag of $17,500 USD survived the eons stuck to its underbelly.

Actually, if I remember correctly, it was a steal at 500 USD.

 

[tikay]

hello~
i have read just three pages but I am going to go on and reply because i am a bit disturbed...what i find disturbing is how you folks are defining what art is, and it seems that maybe you are not artists yourselves, and you are leaving things (of great import to me) out of your definitions, of what art is, was or can be...what makes good art.

Art is not something that is necessarily outward, it can be created, for the enjoyment of a public, a family, a friend...for fame or monetary gain. But art, is for me a form of self expression, created for enjoyment, or catharsis, or clearing the senses, or clarity of and or conveyance of an idea they can't find the words for...for a variety of reasons, some only known by the artist themselves when they go into the forming of a piece.

Just as music is an art, and dance...fine art may be formed of a pattern worked out or a process followed or it can be spontaneous and free. Following no rules but the makers.

Why is it that everyone is so caught up in what art should be?
How it pleases or does not please the senses? It is the manifestation someones ability, someones way to express something, anything...someones idea about a part of life...And just as some poetry is disturbing, or a manifesto can be insane...Art is a reflection of societal mores. Art is life...it is color or tone upon color and tone...it does not need your judgements to be valid.

Art is like Music, you do not have to adhere to loving all of it, but it is no less valid for your displeasure. It all signifys the artist's state of mind. Even if that state of mind is commercial...made just to please another.

As in music or dance, one may prefer ballet to punk, but punk is what draws another human to feel better about themselves, or life, or the moment or the day.
Along those lines, it does not matter if I like only Durer and you only love Escher, & Kadinski, but to bring us together in a gallery where we might meet face to face, discovering all three.


Art is far more than some people realize, and sometimes it is an elephant painting flowers in a zoo.


m'just sayin

 

[Galteeth]

hello~
i have read just three pages but I am going to go on and reply because i am a bit disturbed...what i find disturbing is how you folks are defining what art is, and it seems that maybe you are not artists yourselves, and you are leaving things (of great import to me) out of your definitions, of what art is, was or can be...what makes good art.

Art is not something that is necessarily outward, it can be created, for the enjoyment of a public, a family, a friend...for fame or monetary gain. But art, is for me a form of self expression, created for enjoyment, or catharsis, or clearing the senses, or clarity of and or conveyance of an idea they can't find the words for...for a variety of reasons, some only known by the artist themselves when they go into the forming of a piece.

Just as music is an art, and dance...fine art may be formed of a pattern worked out or a process followed or it can be spontaneous and free. Following no rules but the makers.

Why is it that everyone is so caught up in what art should be?
How it pleases or does not please the senses? It is the manifestation someones ability, someones way to express something, anything...someones idea about a part of life...And just as some poetry is disturbing, or a manifesto can be insane...Art is a reflection of societal mores. Art is life...it is color or tone upon color and tone...it does not need your judgements to be valid.

Art is like Music, you do not have to adhere to loving all of it, but it is no less valid for your displeasure. It all signifys the artist's state of mind. Even if that state of mind is commercial...made just to please another.

As in music or dance, one may prefer ballet to punk, but punk is what draws another human to feel better about themselves, or life, or the moment or the day.
Along those lines, it does not matter if I like only Durer and you only love Escher, & Kadinski, but to bring us together in a gallery where we might meet face to face, discovering all three.


Art is far more than some people realize, and sometimes it is an elephant painting flowers in a zoo.


m'just sayin

I would basically agree with this. I would say art is the production of something that has a metaphysical value beyond solely that of the information contained. In other words, it is a creation whose sum is greater then the addition of its components, in the form of different elements of language combining to create a communication that none of the individual lingual elements (geometric, aesthetic, words, musical, linear story, character, etc) are capable of expressing in isolation.

 

[tikay]

Stop right here. There is no such limit. Each successive generation is dealt a new set of tastes and ideas with which to work, that can't possibly be exhausted before the next generation arrives,

The notion that everything there was to do had already been done that started to creep into people's thinking around 1900, was a kind of fad idea in and of itself, but which took hold on people such that it was spread around like a virus, and people rather dull wittedly believed it. It was never true.

Excellant point! I am thinking...(having read now to the page this post is on, six, i believe), that low-brow art and the semi-undiscovered works of those with mental health issues, are probably the wave of the future. Since everyday more and more folks are "diagnosed".

No one can predict where art will progress to, and that is part of the beauty...arts evolution follows mans evolution and his processes, construction or deconstruction, appealing or repulsive. Disturbing, awe inspiring, precious, genius...art is what we do to keep time, with the ways of the world, as artists. And while I may have what sometimes feels like a great deal of jealousy, or envy, or disgust that some who produce what they produce, which seems of a low caliber, meet with more fame or fortune. I have to give them credit for producing something that provoked, or enlightened, or destroyed a false idea, that mimicked or pleased or made smile or gasp...I have to give them, that they put something out there...which i as an artist, seem to have a hard time doing.

I have my talent, and my ability to produce my sort of art and it comes with some ease, and provides me great pleasure. But who is it affecting, who is it welcoming in, moving, or sending away reeling? If kept to myself...Art is meant to be shared, in order to make the world more somehow aligned...I am grateful to that those who are producing art.
Art of pretty much ANY kind.

If someone deigns to get volumes from a canvas painted just plain white tho~ i might be inclined to smirk about such pretentions...

heehee
;~})

Oh and i adhere to what Hemmingway said in his speech~ it is very hard to reach sometimes, for the unexplored, undiscovered and unexpected, when what you have in you, sometimes, is just right here, and right now, & sometimes just average.
Lowbrow is exciting and new.

http://www.lowbrowartworld.com/profile01.html

and (Outsider art)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistry_of_the_Mentally_Ill

 

[tikay]

Just another thing:
Most genuine artists wouldn't agree with any of the art critics' deep analyses of their work.
To these artists, making their painting in that particular way just "felt right" to them.

This doesn't mean that interesting parallells and evolutions in the history cannot legitimately be pointed out by the art critic, but it doesn't really have a lot to do with the creative imagination of the true artist.

This is true for me, that i do my art because i sense something forming before me, and I may just rub a lightly painted cloth across a surface (sometimes canvas) and there before me my imagination sets to interpreting what is in the pale smatterings. My imagination comes to the fore and gives light to whatever I see before me. I am not someone who knows what i will paint. The painting or piece comes to life before me. Part of this creative process seems to be letting go, allowing the art to take me on a journey.

Someone may interpret my art, and they may be completely right on, or be just so off base, and that isn't too important, I am not completely sure what my own art means to me most of the time. It just produced itself thru my hands...into existence. I was used by the creative flux...in a sense, to my thinking... I am not analysing myself...i am just creating art, i am not making a statement, i see things and I color them in. It pleases me to add color and depth to what i see...but then I see interesting detailed fairy tale images in carpeting and bathroom tiles.

Lucky i guess...

This "friend" in myspace~ they are more into making a statement...it seems.
I love the art~ despite its quietly violent nature.
http://www.myspace.com/logyu