Sculpture Community - Sculpture.net  

Go Back  Sculpture Community - Sculpture.net > Sculpture Roundtable Discussions > Sculpture focus topics
User Name
Password
Home Sculpture Community Photo Gallery ISC Sculpture.org Register FAQ Members List Search New posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-12-2006, 03:18 AM
Thatch Thatch is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dallas,Tx
Posts: 684
Re: The Role of the Artist

Often when I do a piece that I feel is done very well I will expect a remark like "I can do that." from someone who it is probably way beyond the ability to think up something that is complete yet so simple. Most things that are very well done look like they would be simple to do. Actually sometimes they are very simple to build but that isn't the point.

Glenn, who is not my arch enemy, and if we were neighbors would probably be friends as long as we didn't talk politics, makes some fairly complicated sculptures with extremly simple meanings. While making something that nobody understands might be a goal it isn't one I think is admirable. Making something that has no meaning, yet can mean everything (or anything) is a bit different.

My wife took something of mine to her office and most people would ask what it was. It is a sculpture. Of what? Of wood. Is it a bunny? If you want it is. Is it a duck? For you it is a duck. For me it is a nicely carved piece of wood my husband did. Well what does it mean? For you it is a duck. Jenny likes it better as a rabbit, but I know it is just a hunk of a tree that was cut down a few years ago on the corner that my husband carved into this shape which doesn't mean a thing.

Jeff, a few moths ago you posted pics of 3 sculptures you constructed and one of them, to me, looked humanistic and I wanted to think of it as a shaman. I don't have a clue and really don't give a damn about what your thoughts were when you drew it up, cut the pieces out, welded, ground it down or any of that. For all I know and don't care you could have been thinking about the eels in the Rio Grande. Sculpture should have an impact that causes a reaction or it is a failed piece of art. That can be positive or negative and hopefully you planned it that way but unless you are making things that are larger than trees, cliffs, waterfalls and large buildings for the most part if you can't get across something in a glance you have failed. If you can catch attention and get some thought into what you have done it is a success.

Another thing I want to stress is that if you/me/they/us make something that only has appeal to other artists and those who teach about art, but can't quite make it on just outright appeal then that is not quite complete failure but pretty close to it. Anything that has no meaning to most who view it has almost no meaning. Making art for an elite better have some real beauty to it because the urinal has already been done, it only works once and if Duchamp really got a good paycheck out of that one it was because he had a patron.

I can get the idea of urine and feces being used in art where it was sure to get press as a statement against the way the monies from NEA were going to be used, but it was short lived and of no real import. Any art that is made to last generations really needs to be easy to get because perspectives change. A naked body will always be understood as long as we look like we do now. Whether or not women who view David really admire and understand Michelangelo's work and expertise they will for the most part like his ass, and laugh at his little dick. I doubt they will be thinking about war, death in the desert, How many men Goliath killed, etc. I kind of doubt Mickey was either. From looking at the sculptures of his women I think he much prefered to sculpt the tails of young men. Maybe a bit OT there but not much. The message was simple, he liked his subject and a few hundred years later people still love to look at it.

We are basically past the age where subjects and symbols (like the pregnant bride in the wedding portrait) really mean much in art except for those who have studied it. I studied it and quickly forgot it. Hidden depths and meanings might be fine in painting but I feel that sculpture needs to be a straight forward statement and without ambiguity. That doesn't mean that everyone should get the same thing out of it, but what ever they do get, it shouldn't be complicated. And that doesn't mean it can't be complex, but we basically only get a moment or two to catch someone's attention and hopefully their imagination. It better be good and it needs to be easily understood.

Art is a language and if you can't communicate then something is probably wrong with your message.

Thatch
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-12-2006, 09:57 AM
ironman ironman is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silver City, New Mexico
Posts: 1,603
Re: The Role of the Artist

Hi Thatch, Glad to hear that you and GlennT are buddies now, wasn't sure for a few posts back there.
I'm not talking about having a goal of making something that no one understands.
What I am talking about is not taking you or any other human being and their level of understanding (or lack of) into account when making MY WORK!
Have a great day,
Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-12-2006, 06:19 PM
Todd Harry Lane Todd Harry Lane is offline
Level 5 user
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Montgomery Village, MD
Posts: 85
Re: The Role of the Artist

I greatly appreciate and respect abstract art if the artist can draw *first.*

*Seeing* is the foudation of all (but especially) fine art. Once an artist understands how to see, he/she can translate that onto paper and from there can paint, sculpt ect.

I find it disrespectful to art in general when someone decides that they are going to become a painter/sculptor without learning the fundamentals of drawing. It belittles what we do.

As for the role of art and it's societal significance; I think that that is not something for an artist to be concerned with whatsoever.

Popular culture and people are inherently fickle. But if we do quality work, it will stand the test of time.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-12-2006, 07:26 PM
jOe~'s Avatar
jOe~ jOe~ is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spokane, Wa
Posts: 3,190
Re: The Role of the Artist

Quote:
I greatly appreciate and respect abstract art if the artist can draw *first.*
Quote:
*Seeing* is the foudation of all (but especially) fine art.
Quote:
find it disrespectful to art in general when someone decides that they are going to become a painter/sculptor without learning the fundamentals of drawing. It belittles what we do.
Who's to judge drawing ability? What is the proper way to respect art? What others do
belittles what you do? What defines fine art? Put your feet on the ground and get real man!

jOe~
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-12-2006, 07:51 PM
Todd Harry Lane Todd Harry Lane is offline
Level 5 user
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Montgomery Village, MD
Posts: 85
Re: The Role of the Artist

Quote:
Originally Posted by jOe~
Who's to judge drawing ability? What is the proper way to respect art? What others do
belittles what you do? What defines fine art? Put your feet on the ground and get real man!

jOe~
Well, if we're talking about fine art i.e. realism and representing the human, animal or any other form as they *actually* are, you can tell with some training if an artist has an understanding of anatomy, proportion, perspective etc. There are fundamental rules that you can apply.

In my opinion, you respect art by learning its foundations, to which drawing is an essential part.

You wouldn't decide on a whim to become a chemist without realizing that you must first have a basic understanding of science.

What's more annoying than hearing a famous actor or musician say "I think I'm going to become a painter." It makes me want to wretch.

Picasso made some wild paintings and sculptures, but the man knew how to draw *before* he started messing around with cubism.

If you don't know how to see and you don't know how to draw but you want to call yourself a "sculptor," nobody can stop you. But I think that you are deluding yourself....

You mentioned in your profile, JOe~, that your biggest "art orgasm" came from a Henry Moore exhibit in the 70's.... Henry Moore could *draw.*

http://www.toddlaneart.com

Last edited by Todd Harry Lane : 11-13-2006 at 08:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-13-2006, 09:31 AM
ironman ironman is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silver City, New Mexico
Posts: 1,603
Re: The Role of the Artist

Hi Todd, I have been espousing the taking of life drawing classes as THE only way for someone to learn how to SEE as an artist sees for some time now. AND, I've been taken to task for my views. I'm amazed at how many sculptors on this site haven't done any life drawing, put the practice of drawing down and consider it unnecessary to becoming a sculptor. I've checked out a few web sites of these people and without naming names, it's quite obvious from the works pictured on their sites that they don't know how to SEE.
Hi Joe~, We're not talking (at least I'm not) about learning to draw as well as Michelangelo. But of learning to draw as a TOOL to learn how to see. So that you KNOW when something doesn't work, so that you can SEE and if necessary CORRECT things that the average person wouldn't even notice.
I make non-obj welded steel sculpture yet I find those skills I learned in life drawing class absolutely essential to my work.
Have a great day,
Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-13-2006, 10:26 AM
jOe~'s Avatar
jOe~ jOe~ is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spokane, Wa
Posts: 3,190
Re: The Role of the Artist

Todd, you quoted my questions to you but have not answered them. So it appears that you have a problem with reading comprehension, thinking clearly, or your contemporary art knowledge is lacking. This sounds insulting I know, but you made some very strong statements about respecting art, about fine art, about belittling "what we do" that sound arrogant and, well, stupid. Any major museum will now exhibit video, installation and performance art. Do find these categories disrespectful of what you do because there is no evidence of drawing? Like I said, who is going to judge drawing ability so that it is good enough to meet your standards? Drawings of recent sculptors look more like working sketches to me, so does that demean their work or belittle yours? Do you really have to evaluate drawing ability before you can appreciate the final work? I'll end by quoting you again.
Quote:
I greatly appreciate and respect abstract art if the artist can draw *first.*
Quote:
I find it disrespectful to art in general when someone decides that they are going to become a painter/sculptor without learning the fundamentals of drawing. It belittles what we do.
Quote:
What's more annoying than hearing a famous actor or musician say "I think I'm going to become a painter." It makes me want to wretch.
Your kind of reasoning would have one with hold respect for musicians, say Ray Charles, who never took formal lessons, or could not read music.
Quote:
Well, if we're talking about fine art i.e. realism and representing the human, animal or any other form as they *actually* are, you can tell with some training if an artist has an understanding of anatomy, proportion, perspective etc. There are fundamental rules that you can apply.
So what kind of art is abstract art...not so fine? Oops, we'd better not talk about photography, its too realistic(too fine), and we know why photographers chose a camera over a pencil. Define art? Nah, we don't want to go back to the drawing boards do we (pun intended).
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 11-13-2006, 05:17 PM
GlennT's Avatar
GlennT GlennT is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 4,213
Re: The Role of the Artist

The role of the artist is to create art.

If you have a reverence for art, a respect for good craftsmanship, an appreciation of the efforts of thousands of artists over several millenia, and some healthy self-respect, you will make the necessary efforts to prepare for that role. Traditionally this includes learning to draw and to see as an artist.
Even genius generally requires some discipline and training in order for the talent to be channeled effectively. All the more so for the rest of humanity.

The "redefining boundries" or "redefining art" or "redefining my rear end" crowd has little respect for any of the above, so why expect them to learn fundamental skills? Let them call themselves artists if they will. When words are devalued so as to carry little meaning, everyone can be an artist.

Meanwhile, the sun shines on the just and the unjust, the artists, and the pretenders.

GlennT

PS. Thatch and Jeff: Those latest posts are some of your best. And of course we would be friends if neighbors. (Barking friends if discussing politics.)
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 11-13-2006, 11:12 PM
Todd Harry Lane Todd Harry Lane is offline
Level 5 user
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Montgomery Village, MD
Posts: 85
Re: The Role of the Artist

JOe~:

First of all, let me say that you're right about my reading comprehension.... I often find myself having to read the same thing over and over again in order to understand it. It has always been a weakness of mine. So that was very perceptive of you! I'm guilty too of not always thinking clearly

Quick! Somebody get me some hockey equipment and throw me on a short bus!!:P

You said that you were particularly moved by a Henry Moore exhibit in the seventies (I'm a big fan of Moore as well). I'm 36 years old. That means that you're probably at least ten years my senior. Therefore you get my respect right off the bat.

If you said, however, that you were *younger* than me, you may have been able to bait me into a name calling contest with the "stupid" remark

There's something that you should know about me, JOe~; I'm a selfish man. More than any other reason, I joined this forum because I looked at the work of the folks here and I knew that associating with you all would make me a better artist.

I'm happy to debate you, but *only* if I think that it will benefit me artistically. I don't see any value in debating you (or anyone else) about the merits of drawing because I know that it has worked for me. That's good enough.

I think that on the subject of drawing, you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree without being disagreeable:-)

You may very well be one of the few artists that can "see with uncommon clarity" *without* having to draw first. If you are then you're lucky. And I'm jealous as hell!!

A little background: I decided in 1998/1999 that I wanted to attempt to sculpt lifelike mammals. So I bought some how-to videos on sculpture by an artist named A. Wasel.
I followed his instruction and created the female torso that you can see on my site. It's pretty good I think (good enough that it sold anyway).

The problem I was having was that when I tried to sculpt without the videos, my work looked like garbage! I knew that it was crap but I didn't know why.

Week after week I took my work on an eighty mile round trip to my mentor's studio for him to critique. He would just look at it, shake his head and sigh.

That's when he told me to buy the book "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" by Betty Edwards, read it, complete all of the exercises and then come back when I had something of value to show him.

I had taken a goodly number of drawing classes in college and knocked out some respectable sketches. The problem was that, for whatever reason, I was never able to successfully apply what I had learned in drawing class to sculpture. I think that probably too many years had elapsed since I was in art school.

But that all changed for me after finishing Edward's book. I was finally able to see like an artist sees. I was dissecting subjects with my eyes, paying attention to how and where points lined up vertically and horizontally. I was focusing on distances, breaking things down into shapes. I learned about the critical importance of negative space and more. And most importantly,
I drew everyday. It opened up a new world for me artistically. It was thrilling!

To this day I still have a slip of paper taped to my sculpture stand reminding me: SHAPES, DISTANCES, MASS, MOVEMENT.

As a result, I'm now able to tell whether or not a work of art was done by an artist who understands how to see. That to me, distinguishes "fine art" from "folk art" more than anything else I guess.

Of course artists take liberties and exaggerate. That's our job. But I think that it should be exaggerations from a point of knowledge. Not ignorance.

I am NOT saying that I have mastered how to see at all. I may never master it. And my drawings and sculptures inevitably have elements that annoy me. But I'm usually able to recognize my mistakes, which is the key.

If I do five drawings, I may end up with one that I think is a success. I just know that going in.

I'll conclude by saying that learning to draw has, without question, been the most important thing that I have done artistically and has improved my work more than anything else.

P.S. I realize that this is off topic, but I thought some of you may be interested in reading my short story and checking out photos of my motorcycle trip out to the Bonneville salt flats in September: http://www.toddlaneart.com/motorcycle/bsf

Cheers,
T

Last edited by Todd Harry Lane : 11-14-2006 at 01:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 11-14-2006, 02:49 AM
Cantab's Avatar
Cantab Cantab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 440
Re: The Role of the Artist

To go back to earlier posts – "The roll of the artist is to find his or her own path to the making of his or her own artistic expression and to follow it" and “….the artist is unique and individual, dedicated and growing; and this work reflecting his creative power is the best of his vision, but with the promise and always the promise." David Smith, quoted by Ironman.

I hear a lot of emphasis put on the unique vision of the individual artist. Personally I am not so obsessed with my own uniqueness that I need to represent it in stone. T S Eliot once wrote about something he called the ‘objective correlative’. He proposed that art that springs completely from the individual is essentially worthless. Art only becomes great when the artist finds a means (a language of forms and a relationship with artistic tradition) that transforms his MEER individuality into something greater. This ‘objectivity’ allows the individual to escape the purely personal, and in his/her relationship with art create an agreed public ‘correlative’ of the personal feelings that motivate the work. It is, in a sense, in transcending our individuality that great art is created. Michelangelo’s vision was well rooted in the Roman and Greek past; Picasso had Cezanne to guide him into Cubism; David Hockney had Picasso to set up a context for his games with representation. Does this make sense?
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 11-14-2006, 08:01 AM
jOe~'s Avatar
jOe~ jOe~ is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spokane, Wa
Posts: 3,190
Re: The Role of the Artist

Quote:
Does this make sense?
Actually it doesn't. It's poking around in ideas...trying to make an argument that won't hold .
Quote:
art that springs completely from the individual is essentially worthless.
This is psychoanalysis beyond Eliot's abilities. Intellectual masturbation? Yeah, Freud would like that. Jung would probably debate the term "completely". Picasso would agree with Jung.
Quote:
agreed public ‘correlative’ of the personal feelings
Thats a mouthful. "Agreed" ??? "Public"??? "Feelings"??? Cezanne may be considered great but I don't think its for the emotive experience of viewing his "correlatives" of landscapes. The more I think about the work of the artists you mention, the less sense this argument makes.

jOe~
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-14-2006, 08:13 AM
jOe~'s Avatar
jOe~ jOe~ is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spokane, Wa
Posts: 3,190
Re: The Role of the Artist

Todd, there is no debate about the merits of drawing. Thats not what it was about. It was mostly about attitude and thinking clearly. That I'm 20 years older than you should not have any weight either...only what I said.
Quote:
You may very well be one of the few artists that can "see with uncommon clarity" *without* having to draw first.
I think you need to "see" before you can draw uncommonly well, but sometimes I draw when I can't see well as a form of problem solving or discovery. Good luck on your journey.

jOe~
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-14-2006, 08:26 AM
Cantab's Avatar
Cantab Cantab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 440
Re: The Role of the Artist

"Cezanne may be considered great but I don't think its for the emotive experience of viewing his "correlatives" of landscapes." - Joe

Ah, Joe. This is EXACTLY what Cezanne created - structural correlatives of landscapes. Don't tell me you see him as a landscape painter?!

"Agreed public correlative" - well, that's what Impressionism was, or Cubism, or abstract expressionism, or Pop Art, or Mannerism. A group of practitioners establish a public discourse/language. As more practitioners get involved a complex language of discourse is established and developed. Its in this public arena that the personal and individual is transformed in something of value.

'Work of the individual is essentially worthless' - I think I intended the following: the individual and his/her life is too complex and fragmented, an often dull and messy thing in itself. Too much time spent on the toilet, really. But when the individual contributes to a larger cultural language of discourse (an art movement; a genre of poetry; etc) he/she universalises their individual experiences and perceptions. So, Seurat is very different from Monet, but there is an agreed set of principles, values and artistic ideas being explored. We would have heard of none of these people if they had put their own individuality before the public area they wished to contribute to. Their individuality CONSISTS in their contribution to this agreed public discourse.

Last edited by Cantab : 11-14-2006 at 09:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-14-2006, 08:40 AM
jOe~'s Avatar
jOe~ jOe~ is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spokane, Wa
Posts: 3,190
Re: The Role of the Artist

"Cezanne created - structural correlatives of landscapes" v.s. "agreed public ‘correlative" of the personal feelings that motivate the work". "Emotive" was pointing to "personal feelings". "Don't tell me you see him as a landscape painter?" No, agreed, he did paint "structural correlatives". I got hung up on "agreed public ‘correlative" of the personal feelings". Now, do I win because I used the most quotation marks v.s. words contributed in a debate?

jOe~
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11-14-2006, 08:48 AM
Cantab's Avatar
Cantab Cantab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 440
Re: The Role of the Artist

Joe - I suspect you have!

Re: drawing as the foundation. I think I agree with this. I'm neither very good at drawing or sculpting. But the drawing invites a discipline that perhaps precedes sculpting for me.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11-14-2006, 09:19 AM
ironman ironman is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silver City, New Mexico
Posts: 1,603
Re: The Role of the Artist

Hi, Yes Cantab, I for the most part agree with what you said in post #60. We don't create in a vacuum and we don't live in one. It is only through that artistic tradition that new work of any value can exist. Without a roadmap, we can't find our way and when we're lost, everything looks odd and strange. It's the same with art, that "artistic tradition" is our roadmap, without it the work looks odd and strange.
This is not to say that our work should mimic the art of the past, but it must relate in some way to the accepted canon of taste (artistic tradition), whether in agreement with it or in opposition to it.
I didn't bring that part up in my previous posts because I didn't want to confuse the matter at hand, which to me was about creating art WITHOUT taking the VIEWER into consideration.
Have a great day,
Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11-14-2006, 09:21 AM
oscar oscar is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 331
Re: The Role of the Artist

I can understand the role or a role, if one chooses to be an artist. I'm having difficulty trying to figure out the role of the artist who has not had a choice of being an artist. I know some will get mad at me for bringing this up, but what is the role of an artist who never had the choice to be an artist? They were born into it or something. I suffer from bi-polar. My first episode was when I was 17. At that point I knew I was a sculptor and proceeded to then get kicked out of 3 art schools. I never had a choice! I have been a fulltime sculptor for 20 years. My inventory grew so large that in the past few years I have scrapped 5 times more than I create. But if I don't create, I get the heebie jeebies.

I used to believe my role in life was to make people think. Truthfully, I am at a complete loss as to my role as an artist. I can understand someone making a conscious effort to make art and become a sculptor. There involves a self fullfilling prophecy. I can't understand why I am forced to make art and can't get along with people. I understand the role of art in my life, but what is my role? What's been the purpose of making all that art over the last 20 years just to get a large portion of it scrapped? Has art just been my babysitter? So even then, what's my role?
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11-14-2006, 09:44 AM
ironman ironman is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silver City, New Mexico
Posts: 1,603
Re: The Role of the Artist

Hi Oscar, Although I've not been diagnosed as bi-polar, I do have manic side of me with a very little depressive side. I have always been an artist, always did art, always wanted to do art, and will always make art. WHY? Who knows and who cares!
What's my role? To make the work, to take the journey and to NOT scrap the work!
My role is certainly not to make people think.
Why would someone get mad at you for bringing this up? I don't feel that I had a choice either and I'll bet there are plenty of artists out there besides you and I who feel the same way.
My role, just like yours is to make art. Plain and simple! It's a much better use of our time here on earth than most people have.
I think we're BLESSED!!!!!!!!!!!
Have a great day,
Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 11-14-2006, 09:49 AM
jOe~'s Avatar
jOe~ jOe~ is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spokane, Wa
Posts: 3,190
Re: The Role of the Artist

Quote:
what's my role?
Quote:
I can't understand why I am forced to make art
A famous artist was asked by someone "how do I know if I should be an artist?". His reply,"how do you know if you have to pee?".

jOe~
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 11-14-2006, 09:54 AM
ironman ironman is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silver City, New Mexico
Posts: 1,603
Re: The Role of the Artist

Hi Joe~, You gotta love that one! I'd expand on the subject, but, oops, gotta go! LOL
Have a great day,
Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 11-14-2006, 10:50 AM
jOe~'s Avatar
jOe~ jOe~ is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spokane, Wa
Posts: 3,190
Re: The Role of the Artist

Quote:
I think we're BLESSED!!!!!!!!!!!
And I feel blessed that I can pee....the clock is ticking.

jOe~
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 11-14-2006, 01:54 PM
Todd Harry Lane Todd Harry Lane is offline
Level 5 user
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Montgomery Village, MD
Posts: 85
Red face Re: The Role of the Artist

I think you need to "see" before you can draw uncommonly well, but sometimes I draw when I can't see well as a form of problem solving or discovery. Good luck on your journey.

jOe~


Drawing has obviously benefited us both in the same way, jOe~. I'd really like to see some of your sketches. Are they posted somewhere?

-Oscar: Maybe being bi-polar isn't the reason that you're an artist, but the reason that you are such a prolific one...

No offense, but there often seems to be a connection between "madness" and creativity... I wonder why that is?

At least you get the cool tag of being "excentric"

On the subject of why you have to create art; Could be that we're all just worker ants, hopefully doing what we were put on this earth to do.

You're fortunate, Oscar, in that you know what your purpose is and you're living it.

Can I see your work on-line??

Last edited by Todd Harry Lane : 11-14-2006 at 08:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 11-14-2006, 08:04 PM
fritchie's Avatar
fritchie fritchie is offline
Sculptor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 3,456
Re: The Role of the Artist

Cantab: “I hear a lot of emphasis put on the unique vision of the individual artist. Personally I am not so obsessed with my own uniqueness that I need to represent it in stone. T S Eliot once wrote about something he called the ‘objective correlative’.”

You’re ignoring the context of the discussion in which these comments are embedded. Most if not all people here accept that we’re discussing art - whatever that is - and they are describing their contributions to the process, or their motivations.

Cantab: “He (T S Eliot) proposed that art that springs completely from the individual is essentially worthless.” Neither art nor anything else can spring completely from an individual. We all are participating members of some society (excepting those who fall into solipsism or other madness), and everything we do relates to that context. Superficially, I seem to be denying the existence here of genius, say Einstein for example, but every such person is embedded in his or her own context and in fact is reacting to it. Genius, artist?? They’re expressing new views, and so far we haven’t explored the source of the originality. I’m not sure we can say anything useful on this point.

To be a little more generous to T S Eliot, he is saying much the same thing I am, that everyone lives within some societal context, but I think he gives too much credence to the herd instinct when he goes further to say only group activity, i. e., fashion, can result in art.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 11-15-2006, 02:51 AM
Cantab's Avatar
Cantab Cantab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 440
Re: The Role of the Artist

Well, no, Fritchie. We can agree that all people live in a societal context and that this context shapes them accordingly. OK on that. I’m saying something more than that, though, and Eliot is too. I was expressing a certain weariness at the notion that art is a means of personal expression, and a vehicle for the individual to express their individuality. My experience of great art is that it is NOT born out of this, but rather out of a desire to contribute to a tradition. One’s identity as an artist, and one’s individuality as an artist, belongs to this public sphere of activity. The private individual is something else, and if private individuals wish to create great art then they will have to establish a relationship with an artistic tradition. It will be in that relationship that an individual artistic identity is created, and then good art. This is why the art histories are not crammed with individuals expressing themselves, but art movements and the study of the contributions individual artists have made to these movements. Art as expression of one’s individuality is an amateur’s notion of what artistic activity is.

Last edited by Cantab : 11-15-2006 at 03:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 11-15-2006, 10:52 AM
jOe~'s Avatar
jOe~ jOe~ is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spokane, Wa
Posts: 3,190
Re: The Role of the Artist

Quote:
I was expressing a certain weariness at the notion that art is a means of personal expression, and a vehicle for the individual to express their individuality. My experience of great art is that it is NOT born out of this, but rather out of a desire to contribute to a tradition.
Well I think I agree. But what about "art" that thwarts tradition to start "new" movements? It seems that what you are saying is that "great" art has to have historical significance, in the past, now, or in the future. Problems arise in making judgements and in writing down ones ideas. You have to be extremely careful in your use of words, every word in fact, since most can not be defined to any degree of precision and you will always be called on varying interpretations. I'm always amazed and often disappointed but the misreadings that occur on this forum. But thats the nature of the human mind. Your use of the word "weariness" suggests that you prefer art that has more meat on the bone and get bored by the way many use their art. How much meat is required is a personal matter, unless you are trying to keep up with the latest menue, then taste becomes dictated.

I try to simplify matters with an open ended view on art. I think its pretty loose and forgiving. For me, there's amazing(which may not be great), great, good, so-so, boring, gag-me, and just plain bad forms of art. I try to understand everything. Its all going to affect me and what I do--how I don't know. Picasso said the same thing.

Then lets not forget that we have the problems of history and its on going re-creation. The critics of today will be denounced/revised/re-discovered by those of tomorrow--or the industry dies--and people are much too clever with their thinking and writing to let that happen. I just go for the stuff that moves me and works for me. I'm quite the expert on that.

jOe~
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Sculpture Community, Sculpture.net
International Sculpture Center, Sculpture.org
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Russ RuBert