|
| |
|
|  mollybrogan | Apr 7, 10:12am | What is the role of the artist in 2008? Is there one beyond personal expression? Is there a social role for an artist to play, and if he does, does it even matter to anyone other than to those to whom the artwork speaks? Or is art holographic in nature, bringing us to a different state of being each time we enter, and the artist's only role: creator?
The writer (Lolita) Vladimir Nabokov said, ""A work of art has no importance whatever to society. It is only important to the individual."
Fredrich Nietzsche felt that art had a broader value: "Art is essentially the affirmation, the blessing, and the deification of existence."
Andy Warhol disrupted the common views of the role each artist should play in their art. With Warhol's Brillo there is absolutely no sign of the artist's hand or that this piece was even made by an artist. Since he uses different techniques than traditional artists, at times he may never touch the piece at all and it still will be credited to him. This is a complete turn around from what was once expected from the artist. Skill is no longer involved, it is much more about content, appearance, and processes. Now many artists, such as Chihuly and Oldenburg follow in the footsteps of Warhol, by acting as designer, and letting the actual making of their art work be the job of their hired contractors, laborers and apprentices.
Artist such as Van Gough and Rembrandt are thought to have especially personal art because the "artist's hand" or brushstrokes are visible throughout their pieces, showing their inner emotions. This personal quality of is often said to be why their paintings sell at such high prices. The same can be said of Jackson Pollock's work.
There are those that believe the artist has a higher calling. Carl Jung believed, "Art is a kind of innate drive that seizes a human being and makes him its instrument. To perform this difficult office it is sometimes necessary for him to sacrifice happiness and everything that makes life worth living for the ordinary human being."
Joseph Campbell said, "The role of the artist I now understood as that of revealing through the world-surfaces the implicit forms of the soul."
What do YOU think?
cblegacy.blogspot.com [cblegacy.blogspot.com] |
|
| 
|  Graymalkin | Apr 7, 11:14pm | | Surely,it is a huge subject but let me just add a little remark.I noticed that artists and even more often art historians believe that art,especially painting has the power to change something in society,move the communal conscience.I happen to think that the sotto voce of a painting cannot influence society at all. I think that painting communicates with that part of our being that is not social but profoundly private.Therefore it is wise to remember of that situation while painting and make sure that the content will have to speak to viewer's cavernous privacy rather than ability to recognise the commonplace information. Brillo pads and pet-rocks are not art ,they are episodes in the long and astonishing history of praying on human innocence. |
|
| | | Grouchoo | Apr 8, 3:56pm | zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Listen, let me tell you something ... keep it snappy.
Otherwise, folks will fall asleep.
Just like in the UN when they talk about the atrocities in Gaza/Palestine. |
|
| 
|  CassandraX | Apr 8, 10:30pm | Keep it short to compensate for the people's ever shrinking attention spans?
Then maybe we should call this: Flash Art!!! NEW IMPROVED FORMULA!!! |
|
| 
| | leylamurr | Apr 10, 10:47am | I agree with Graymalkin up to a point i.e. the relationship between a painter and his work is private as well as the creation itself but once it is shown to another person it is no longer so. If a lot of people see the painting and are impressed by it , sooner or later this impression will be communicated to others and if it lives in many heads or hearts what it is then? Public in a social kind of way. I agree that art , if created from within an individual could not relate to commonplace information.
Having said all of that I think it is hard to define what is commonplace these days. The word itself is either archaic or we have all become commonplace. Do you want me to go on? |
|
|
| | CassandraX | Apr 10, 10:50am | | Yes, please. You mean that once it is in the public domain a painting relinquishes the intimate connection with the artist? I believe that particular connection can never be replaced, but the painting itself gains new meanings from its exposure to the public. |
|
| | | Grouchoo | Apr 11, 7:28am | Pwhaaat.
You are talking nonsense, the pair of you.
Art is paint, and you are fuckers. |
|
| 
Sponsor |  kellymoore | Apr 11, 8:08am | the little voices will
say art is nothing (so they can walk away from their responsibility to their art)
but, it is a high mark
to try to hit a target
and open an eye
with your art
other wise
why not just go jack off and say art is nothing |
|
| | | Grouchoo | Apr 11, 8:16am | Stick your pinky up your cunt
(Sweeten it first with a suck)
Twist it in and thrust
OMG. |
|
|
| | Graymalkin | Apr 11, 8:31am | | Cassandra wrote:"the painting itself gains new meanings from its exposure to the public" and I believe it is true.It enters busily navigated public waters,its native culture and the private voice of the painter get layered over with powerful cliches of the Zeitgeist.We have no control over that-all we can do is to shake our heads.Still- I would insist that a painting is intended to flow from one privacy to another privacy,somewhat like a love sonnet. |
| |
| |
|
Art → Discussion