Replies: 9 Comments
on Monday, October 11th, Adri A.C. de Fluiter said
The value of art has two points of view. For most of the people it is of course the financial aspect. Rhey belive art is only art when it sells. It's akay of course. The other view is the value in case of the real task of the arts, to make it possible to see the world with new eyes. Once I made a column over this subject and compared art with glasses. A piece of art can be like a pair of glasses. When I was on high school I got glasses and saw for the first time in my live all the leafs on a tree. Wonderfull experience. That is the same with some art it makes it possible to see the subject in a complete new way. And because of this one is encouraged to use this new information for the creative power in him/herself to tackle the world around in this new perspective. So artists has to be aware of this and ask themselves questions if there is a new way of seeing in there own work.
on Friday, October 8th, JV Harvey said
I rarely read 'blogs' however came to this one via the newsletter I received. However after reading the comments here, I felt compelled to write.
Shakti Gowan stated in one of her books "Your Life Is Your Greatest Work Of Art".
Without Art, Life would cease to exist as it is a "Creation" of a Masterful Artist's Hand.
In that Image made, ie. Creators of Art including the Life We Live, to live without Art is to Die to being a Creator, to cease existing - in or out of a body. As Artists we create many works of Art including many bodys of works. When one 'canvas' or 'life' is finished, we proceed to the next as we continue to Master our abilities to Create the next work of art or the next body we inhabit and indeed the World in which we live.
As one's life is one's greatest work of art, it is inclusive and not limited to just one canvas, and in like manner not to just one body which we use as an expression and creation to externalize the incredible energy of the life and the universe within us.
JV Harvey
on Wednesday, September 29th, douglas7@bigpond.com">paul douglas said
Jose,your comments about people living in war torn places,producing art,and then comparing their art with art produced in New York or Berlin,and suggesting that their art is better,seems nonsensical to me,art doesnt work like that,we can all have every sympathy with all of the innocent people that suffer in war torn places,and to see the work of artists from those places,can be powerfull,enlightening,sad, tragic,fearfull,or not,it necassarily doesnt match up that these artists are better than the ones who are in other places,that are not at war.Futhermore,I think that an artist who is living in some remote corner of anywhere is certainley hoping that one day someone will turn up and buy everthing he or she has,that isnt the reason they produce it,nor is it with any artist,at least a real artist,but certainley they want to sell it,or to do some good from their work either in their community or wherever,or maybey not,and in a way for you to use the disasters that befall parts of the world and people to justify your argument is out of order.Also I do maintain that art is far better served by artists in a practical no nonsense way,it suffers from over theorizing and having all kinds of tags placed upon it by others,so that artists who are also heaping up nonsense are guilty of the same theorizing so beloved of critics and writers.
on Monday, September 27th, Mike Fornadley said
Now I believe that Paul is on to something here, from previous posts he is not tainted about why we do art. Any artist loves it with a passion, but we live in a real world which for the most part doesn't give a hoot about this art business. Is it a stereotypical view that a artist is considered an entertainer first, maybe there is too many voices out there and you need to act the fool to get attention. Most galleries you have to admit tend to value the marketability of the artist's personality, it would be first priority over the actual work.
As Jose clearly stated there is an element of expression that goes beyond the concept of being marketable. That is art in it's finest hour, straight from the soul, to carve out unjustice, to kick in some teeth, to upset the status quo. Artists may have forgot about the power they once controlled, could we have been tamed by this chasing the wind idea of fame and money?
Face it we all get tired sometimes of the official art jargon, could be that we have been staring at our belly buttons too long. Thinking is Ok, but some people go way overboard, start using your animal side of the brain, maybe you will start to produce better art and start kicking in some teeth. But don't expect to make friends or be marketable.
on Monday, September 27th, jose freitas cruz said
This is not so much a response to you but rather to mr. Paul Douglas’ response to you.
I read the blogs. I may not respond to them because I have decided to reduce the time I spend in front of a screen – and the withdrawal symptoms gave me a measure of just how troublesome things had become – but I read them as I read the commentaries which can be as interesting as the texts themselves. Sometimes, however, the responses can be quite ruthless and destructive and I feel compelled to write a few words even though I guess such reactions are inevitable and an important part of what exhibiting one’s work and ideas is all about. We become exposed.
There is not much I can add to what Brad and Walt have written. They seem to have read your text in its entirety and taken the care to share their insights and experiences with you and I wouldn’t be adding anything new.
As to Paul Douglas’ commentary, while I cannot refute that we do indeed produce an item that tends only to become a consideration in most peoples budgets once the basic needs have been met, the conclusion he reaches and all the rest he has replied to you is, in his own charming words, ‘a load of codswallop’! All this inner this and inner that gets up many peoples noses especially those wholly focused on the outwardly – on the easily recognizable labels any ignorant fool can market based on the information a certain elite is bent on promoting – utterly incapable of trusting their own inner necessities and dictates or unknowledgeable of their existence and how to ‘listen’ to them.
If art is indeed so unimportant and unessential than pray tell us mr. Douglas what drives a being in a village ravaged by war in the Sudan or in a forgotten corner of Bangladesh to invest so much of his/her energy to satisfy the urge to bring to light their innermost feelings in works of art that far outshine any of the shit a New York or Berlin gallery can peddle? Do you truly believe they are waiting for somebody from a far-off wealthy society to just pop up at their doorstep? Codswallop I say to you. That artists cannot live without creating art is not as romantic an idea as you suggest.
on Saturday, September 25th, pauldouglas7@bigpond.com">paul douglas said
Firstly,its absoloute nonsense,that a person cannot live without creating art,that is just a romantic idea,we cannot live without eating,or water,or fresh air,in many ways its a self fulfiling prophecy,which is why so many egotists are attracted to art,quacks really,all this inner this and inner that gets right up my nose,its all a load of codswallop,the world at large couldnt give a toss about any artist unless they are marketable,anyones work is not important,its very unimportant,unessential,a complete and utter luxury,we are producing luxury items,in a wealthy society,thats all.
on Saturday, September 25th, pauldouglas7@bigpond.com">paul douglas said
Firstly,its absoloute nonsense,that a person cannot live without creating art,that is just a romantic idea,we cannot live without eating,or water,or fresh air,in many ways its a self fulfiling prophecy,which is why so many egotists are attracted to art,quacks really,all this inner this and inner that gets right up my nose,its all a load of codswallop,the world at large couldnt give a toss about any artist unless they are marketable,anyones work is not important,its very unimportant,unessential,a complete and utter luxury,we are producing luxury items,in a wealthy society,thats all.
on Friday, September 24th, Brad Michael Moore said
A life of it’s own… Art, like any object created, has a life of its own and its creator becomes it’s ward. You can give it away, or store it for another day, or put it out into the world where’s it’s course is directed by the hands of other’s responsibility. If we chose to allow our children to go to college and leave home (or have a choice over which direction they may go) it’s the same in so far as giving up our strongest authority directly. We trust we have taught our children well enough to survive in the world. My best efforts at art are made to survive in the world as well but either (our art or our children) come to face life’s uncertainly and fate follows both. I’ve always found it more difficult to give a sculpture than a photograph. The sculpture can never be replaced – neither can our children. Still, it is our nature to try and protect, as best we can, our creations. Whatever the outcome of letting go of either –releasing both are acts of faith. Our letting go of something so close to our heart allows us then go forward and create something new – let go of it, and create again. What happens to our creations will impact the results of whatever we do that follows and that is how our art grows from one state of mind to another. Feed the mind, sacrifice, let go of (or sell) our illustrations of the past and hope what goes around comes around. Bottom line, put what we love out into the world to grow where it may find new meaning that may enhance the existence of others. If we keep things at home we enhance our surroundings in which we live and our friends will still find nourishment visiting. Cindy Sherman said in a 1997 interview by Glen Helfand, "When I'm making the work, I'm never thinking of any of the things people find in it. Sometimes I wonder if maybe it's all a lot of crap. Maybe the work doesn't mean anything. When they're writing about it, they're just finding whatever to attach their theories to. I just happen to illustrate some theories.” We can’t worry further over what others will say and do over the gifts we give to the world – if they react at all – the sacrifice (or offering) makes its mark. If we teach our children well – they will make their own mark. If we keep the things we love too close at hand – then perhaps we don’t need our lives to be anymore than what we can control ourselves. Art, I think, likes to travel - as would any strapping young person wishing to see the world and whatever impact they can add to it’s essence. We are all commodities, just in the fact we pay taxes to government and survive by the materials of the vendors who provide us the goods that feed, cloth, shelter, and comfort us. Many times, I survive by trading my art for food, other’s art, and any assortment of things that help me get through my day to day. My goal is not to be a burden. Having my art become a catalysis of positive consequence to anyone, anywhere would be a fine trade to me.
on Friday, September 24th, walter king said
Laura,
Not everyone has the temprament for the commercial aspect of the arts. Like any business it can leave a nasty taste in your mouth. So over the years I've seen a number of very talented students quit the profession because they felt they didn't have the chops or because it made them feel bad about their own work. But many of them continue to make art all the same to live with in their own homes, to give to friends as loving gifts and for the shear theraputic value of communing with ones own soul. They often write and apologize for 'dropping out'. I usually ask if they are happier. And if so why apologize? I always assume they are paying me as a teacher to help them do something they ultimately want to do anyway. If they change their minds or find that it is not satisfying and find something else that makes them feel better about themselves I applaud.
Because art is somewhat connected to our spiritual and religious nature I think it is a personal choice whether to make art and use the 'system' as it were to float it in front of a public that theoreticly wants the spiritual connection as well as the financial value of art or to avoid the system in part or all together for the sake of spiritual integrity.
And of course it depends somewhat on ones ability to make a living and still have time to make art. We used to call those who did not have to persue a commercial venue 'dilitants' which has become a somewhat politically incorrect term these days. It was always more or less derogatory within professional circles. Another term was amateur, also somewhat belittling especially when applied to someone who actually aspired to something more. But an artist who attracts any attention will always suffer at the hands of the 'critics'.
Being a professional artist is hard and full of traps and snares and humiliations. This is one of the reasons we celebrate those artists who have braved, survived and surmounted the art world's tempests, temptations, slings and arrows and still retained their artistic integrity (if only in our perceptions). And we seem to reserve special status for those who stumble and fall tragically in that struggle.
But I guess the real issue is why would anyone need my permission to do or not to do art? Because I am consumed by it I never felt I had to ask for permission.
Walter King
