Being in the reflexive mood proposed by our Sith friend ghostinthemachine, I want to share an inquietude:

Recently I went to a conference at university. An old artist lady was talking about her life, her artistic work, and showing some stuff.
The place was full of people, most students, teachers, some snobs, and politicians.
The lady was really open and spontaneous, she wasn´t the weird artist character I´m used to at all.
I live in a small place, and people is attracted more by how you look than for your work, so if you want to be or pretend to be an 'artist' your presence has to be noticeable by 'normal people'. Then, shitty talk spreads your name and everybody knows about what clothes do you use, your sexual preferences and your hair style (and with some luck, a little about your work).

Being in a really skeptical phase I enjoyed the natural vibe of the conference. Of course, politicians and academic people started the conference and interrupted a few times to make clear how GREAT they were by giving her that space to share.
When the questions time started, spontaneity and snoob-academicism started to crash.
Everybody was asking her from a over elaborated place, related to historical/contextual stuff, opinions by art critics (that she didn't even know), and their teacher´s symbolic readings about every little detail found on every piece.
At every question she answered laughing things like: because I liked it, because it was nice, it was fun.. like any old lady you know talking about candies, with some childish innocence.
She also couldn´t answer some really intrincated questions. It was like she was showing her work and how it was created from a simple stand, and everybody was trying to understand, descontruct and get big life´s revelations from it through their egos.

So I started thinking about the distance between the conception moment and how the piece spreads later.
It was really violent that most of the people there approached to her work because of wrong or subjective readings of people that made a statement, an interpretation, a critic, or something about who is she and why she creates what she creates.
And she was there to laugh like a child about all that ego overthinking, and prove them wrong.
She never thought about context influences, historical changes, politics, or any stuff mentioned by the people to explain her art work, like some sort of cause > consequence recipe.
Some of the people even felt frustrated or disappointed because their expectations about her, and she was being real.
And I´m not even talking about the economic side of this, people paying absurd and grotesque amounts of money to be part of an elitist circle, by owning with greed an exclusive slice of her spirit.
She laughed about that too.

Anyway, being a graphic design student, I´ve taken some art, history and philosophy courses, and this is a common story. That´s why I´m so skeptical. Curious people creating or looking for something, and tons of outer influences (some toxic ones) redefining and guiding later experiences.

So, what do you think about all this? Art exists? What is art for you? When art happens?

In this case 'art' seems to be the later interpretation/effect in some pretentious people, way far from the real thing.

About me, I don´t call myself an artist (yet, until I know what it means), but lots of people do. Do you?
Also, lots of people refer to me in that way, in a positive or negative manner ("let him, it´s because he´s just an artist") , and it happened that some of my stuff was redefined by other people, and that´s fine. If they´re moved in any way it´s a blessing.

My concern is about 'art' spreaded in a massive way, mediated by 'outers' who change/distort the meaning or even decide what´s art or not.

 

I think if the woman was willing to reveal her art and stories then thats fine, i don't think there is any problem with people trying to understand the reasoning or the expression in the pieces of art she displayed,. As with any artist trying to make a piece of "art", you are trying to reveal emotion, express feelings, or convey some perspective. I feel as if i can call myself an artist if i have conveyed these feelings to my specific taste. Also, anything can be art, but it just comes down to the how well it is expressed through art; a personal judgement you should make yourself. Let others have their own interpretation of your art, that is in essence what makes art.

 

I just watched the documentary: Vangelis and the Journey to Ithaka, and I can tell you, art, and great artists still exist. Yes, they are hidden by the commercial stuff (which, btw is called 'industry', not 'art'), but they are and will always be there.

 

Where do I begin?

1: Am I an artist: I composed my very first song when I was about 11 years old, but that doesnt make me an artist!

2: The intellectual and economic angle has always been a serious part of art ... art has basically become business - also in an intellectual sense!

3: Sounds like this debate with this old artist (I wish you could tell me her name) was an eye-opener - I would love to have been there too.

Its a long written issiue mate! Many seperate states! I Just replied a few!

Thanks

 

Too drunk to answer after doing some art. I need a film, good one. Not some piece of Hollywood crap. I can fathom some answer in the morning while I drink coffee and eat tomato soup.

But thank you for a nice thread. And I love the way you wrote your post, the way you think about that lady , how you think normally, realistically, rationally. You seem to be a really decent chap. That's a good start if you want to be an artist. A real artist, I mean. Btw. what kind of art are we talking about here? Painting? Sculpture? Music? Boats in bottles? Pottery? Art is such a broad term. I consider cooking an art, too, but everyone should know how to make a sandwich and they usually do, eh? Kinda nice analogy, I think....

You can make a sandwich, but can you make excellent chilli beans or tomato sauce with pasta, or even something simple as pizza? ;)

 

Indeed, as SineWave pointed out, the term art in itself suffered for some kind of depreciation. Art, in its true sense, is a work that is able to produce a catharctic experience to the one receiving it. It's the simplest and most essential way of defining it. Not mere pleasure, like perfumery of cooking, but pure aesthetic experience in its highest form (catharsis).

 

I know this is a chaotic post. All converge in how knowledge is spreaded and modified during the process.
The situation was like: "hey, I learned this from this and this source, and I´m sure I learned you well, could you explain me this?" -and she replying: "but that´s not me, I don´t know what to say about that".

I´m not against interpretations at all, but I´m wondering if art is not some sort of mind state, like 'summing readings' during some time. Meaning sometimes takes time, and needs a mature and distant look back to get some conclusions.
Is just that in some cases it seems that the original feeling or what the artist was aiming for is replaced/erased completely by the conclusions. So.. is art related to the artist and/or the piece, or is just a bunch of interpretations changing during time, by the angle and the intellectual approach of the later people affected???

Old artist lady: Liliana Porter
She combines photography with painting and some installations.

I didn´t know her work when I went to the conference. I went just because I´m curious and I like to listen people´s history.
Seriously, the questions at the conference were ridiculous at some point, and also she was a little lost or uncomfortable. I think she noticed some frustration in the air. And that was really contradictory, because her innocence explained much more about her work than the given answers, teacher´s conclusions and critics taken from some books.

 

All I can say is: Artists exists - thats for sure!

You have actually been confronted with an artist that dosent pay much attention to what´s really makes it in the media etc. I guess she have just desided making art for arts sake!

Thanks for her (artist name) .... I´ll search and read stuff about her soon

 

Art is soooooo subjective because most people want to believe what they want to believe about a piece or a particular artist. It's not their fault, they're just trying to understand the method and intention of the artist. Which in most cases is usually the apposite of what people are speculating. A friend and I have come to a conclusion about why people flock to see galleries, live shows, live sports (I believe sports are an art of their own), and anything else that involves some sort of artist. It's that yearning to be part of something great or at least be in the presence of it. That alone is enough to get them trough the reality that not all people are meant for greatness.

Why do you think these people are praised so much? My answer is that they are providing a service just like a magician does. Once you captivate someone with the impossible and you fool them, even for a second, you remind them of how incredible this messed up world is. Making someone forget about their problems and how jakced up this reality is, demands to be rewarded. And we do, by praising our favorite artist,bands, athletes, producers, actors, directors, and so on.

Art is when you decide to express yourself in any form and it happens once you make that conscious decision to commit to it, even for a second. And as long as there are human beings around there will always be a form of art.

 

You know, it's also about the focus and the preconception of what you're seeing. See, 'artists' are not only judged for their product of work but for who they are. That tampers with objectivity and most importantly, clear vision. Many of them are supposedly eccentrics or have their own worlds they delve into. But, even then, you have to think whether they are products themselves. Are they a bundle with their product? Are they original? Or do they sell a style? Does the product "sell itself"? Are they really eccentrics or are just trying to be for the sake of it? And of course, when you're trying to be something you're not, it bleeds and shows through everything. You either have to be a really good actor or fall in some kind of faceless/fill-in (stereo)typical, easily digested reproduction. A product of habit. If you're honest and something flows through you, it also shows! You can be judged or liked for something you lack (according to others) or have. Also, do you want to play it safe and sell? Are you hired/not independent? Do you want to innovate? Or just express yourself?

People ..are easy with what's easy. That doesn't mean they can't appreciate or like something for real. I have a feeling though that preferences are also highly manipulated and shaped by what you're exposed to. As is your view of everything you see - especially if it fits in some stereotype. Some examples:

- Do you like ballads? : Something's wrong with your manliness or you're soooooooooooo romantic
- Are you in rap/hip-hop? : You're probably selling weed, posssess a gun, participate in gang fights AND you have no taste!
- Are you eccentric? : Your eccentricity is the selling point.
- Are you into dance/...? : You are most likely spending all your free time in clubs and you are hearing impaired.
- Are you a metalhead? : Well, your head should show that...
- Are you into classical? : Dude, you're ancient! Then again, they're called classical for a reason...

It's how the brain works. Patterns. That's also about making life easier. And decisions... These, of course, are not independent of the music's character, lyrics, style, concept etc. But they're not for sure either. I think it's a matter of (uniformed) quantity and quality. But "qualities" can be of many kinds... It also pertains to societal gains or values.

(Not saying that those are going to happen 100% but it's possible)

And now, I'm sorry, but I have to really challenge you:

Case #1: You have a movie director that makes really fucked-up gory movies blah, blah... Is he a just sick person? A seller of empty chills? Expresses nothing?
Case #2: Popular artist that is revealed to be a killer or a mobster or having done something really bad and on top of that having that related to his art? Do his ethics make him a good/better or bad/worse artist? Do they make his work less valuable/desired/meaningful? Degrade its effect in any form?
Case #3: Some killers say they're artists. What do you think? Are they demented? Or are all interpretations open? Is art an excuse or an inclination? An urge? A reaction? And if so, to what? Society? Inner demons?

I know these sounds like horror movie scripts but think about it...

Your verdict (laws excluded of course, lol)?

Art [and its interpretation] doesn't have dos or don'ts (well, as long as it isn't something entirely technical like basic design or production or basic slaughtering techniques), society and law have dos and don'ts. Maybe it's about how much you can bend the basic rules and how far you're willing to go to get to a result. Motives are also important.

What's entertainment and what's tittytainment? What's acceptable and what isn't? Can "taste" be manipulated? As meantioned in the taste thread it could all be just pretentious claimms that mean nothing as long as you like something or find meaning in it. Oh, the joys of life...

P.S. I think Mona Lisa is fucking ugly! (But maybe I wasn't ever supposed to see it, anyway...)
P.S. 2 Art is supposed to be translated and digested by every one who receives it. Digestion does produce a lot of turds. Sure, it's not nice when the original intention is totally greyed out or lost but it's part of the game.(That is, unless the intention is clearly stated. Whether YOU can see it or relate to it, is another issue, haha.)
P.S. 3 An artist in still a human being... How does the title change that?

I could keep elaborating but I don't think it's necessary.

 

I guess there are 2 (at least!) kinds of artist.

Those who create from the head, and those who create from their heart/soul/spirit.

I would think most begin with the latter, their heart, as a means of expressing, via a medium they will already be drawn to or familiar with, something within that simply NEEDS expressing. If this first foray is judged successful by the artist, then more similar art follows. Others will eventually be exposed to the art and, if they too are impressed enough, an ego is born and a possible avenue of revenue is revealed.

The head now becomes involved and, so long as the heart also remains, the art grows and continues to inspire and delight. If however, as is seen many, MANY times, the head takes over, the need for commercial gain outweighing the desire for the heart to express itself, the art usually becomes sterile and begins to follow trends and fashions thus becoming more a statement of means than art per se.

Errrrrrrm, at least that`s what I think. Thanks for listening.