Not all artists are extroverts in the sense that they want to communicate some feeling or some emotions. Some artists are introverts who create art for themselves, who are more interested in the visual effects of colours, lines and shapes, than what it does to others. Take for example the Dutch artist Peter Struycken, who started as a classical scholed artist, but who in the late sixties used a computer program devel…
I just noted that I wrote: "He does like openings of exhibitions of his works," while I wanted to write that he does not like openings. He only goes there because others expect him to be present.
Not all artists are extroverts in the sense that they want to communicate some feeling or some emotions. Some artists are introverts who create art for themselves, who are more interested in the visual effects of colours, lines and shapes, than what it does to others. Take for example the Dutch artist Peter Struycken, who started as a classical scholed artist, but who in the late sixties used a computer program devel…
Exploration, in a nut shell.
Which can be interesting and fun to share (more so when it results in collaboration or derivatives), but can also exist fine without.
I have a lot of sympathy with this article's main point of view, that art has has its roots in the biological evolution of the human species. The author references a book by Denis Dutton - The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, & Human Evolution[1] - where Dutton argues that art is an evolutionary trait, and is shaped by natural selection. That book was published in 2010; I wrote a (short) article in 2007 along very similar lines in an attempt to explain why poetry exists in every human language[2] - it's good to find out that I'm not alone in having such an outrageous belief!
The second half of the article, on how computer-generated art fits into the art-is-fundamentally-social equation ... I currently have no definitive opinion on that question. My thoughts on the issue vary on a day-to-day basis between "art without a human creator is irrelevant" and "art happens in the mind of the person who sees/hears/feels it, not in the medium used to present and preserve it". My guts favour the latter opinion, but it would be nice if I could work out a decent argument to support the assertion.
I am personally not a big believer in the idea that art is just a means to an end (even if that end is something we consider very valuable). This article uses the words "purpose" and "goal" a lot, and it is that aspect that I disagree with, although I would agree that art is phenomenon that can only be considered properly inside of its social context. That is, saying that a painting is just a tool for the painter to…
I think of it as art itself being the goal.
While artists may hope their art will also fulfill other goals, I wouldn't want to live in a world without art, where those goals are instead fulfilled by expending equivalent effort to turn the crank of some machine. I suspect neither would the author of this article.
lets not forget not too long ago art was a available only to the rich. the social elements were confined to the whim and contingency of the lords, aristocratics and nobles who deemed art to be so. as we may glean from walter benjamin, the reproducibility of art in a capitalist industry brought art to the 'people'. we now live in an age where 'art' and 'artists' are ubiquitous and available for 'everyone'. these socia…
While I agree that "high quality art" or "art made from expensive materials" may, for much of human history, have been available only to the rich, I would argue that such art is a minuscule percentage of all the art produced down the ages. Take jewellery, for instance: while the rulers and nobles may have owned brooches and necklaces made from gold or carved from jade, everybody needed to pin their clothes together, or felt safer when they hung a ward/fetish/amulet around their necks to help them get through the day. Such things can be made from the commonest materials (clay, bones, wood, etc) but that doesn't stop the people who made such things putting some effort into making them attractive, beautiful even - in other words, art.
lets not forget not too long ago art was a available only to the rich. the social elements were confined to the whim and contingency of the lords, aristocratics and nobles who deemed art to be so. as we may glean from walter benjamin, the reproducibility of art in a capitalist industry brought art to the 'people'. we now live in an age where 'art' and 'artists' are ubiquitous and available for 'everyone'. these socia…
Art has existed long before the rich became wealthy. The most ancient of cave-people collected shiny stones, painted walls, sang and danced, and crafted non-tool items like idols.
> the reproducibility of art in a capitalist industry brought art to the 'people'.
The Japanese were woodblock printing art for the masses since the 17th century. Woodblock printing itself is much older.
I am personally not a big believer in the idea that art is just a means to an end (even if that end is something we consider very valuable). This article uses the words "purpose" and "goal" a lot, and it is that aspect that I disagree with, although I would agree that art is phenomenon that can only be considered properly inside of its social context. That is, saying that a painting is just a tool for the painter to…
I think of it as art itself being the goal. While artists may hope their art will also fulfill other goals, I wouldn't want to live in a world without art, where those goals are instead fulfilled by expending equivalent effort to turn the crank of some machine. I suspect neither would the author of this article.
I agree. I often see the top 1% who are really successful in art, using art as the means rather than the end. note how mediocre their art is versus other great skills they have like networking (i.e.: current pop music) with very rare exceptions.
I fundamentally disagree with the premise that all art is social Kurt Vonnegut expressed this better than I ever could in a letter to schoolkids, in it he persuaded them to write a poem then tear it into pieces without showing anyone.. "you'll find that you've already been gloriously rewarded for your poem. You have experienced becoming" Full letter here: https://highexistence.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1053653..…
Those kids, and any artist, are if nothing else affected by their environment and the culture they experience, at a fundamental and largely unconscious level.
So even the most reclusive artist is in a dialogue: with all the artists of the past several millenia ;)