What's the real aim for an artist?

[domenico_foschi]

Looking at my finished products ( photographs ) i have come to

realize that although the subject matter is always something that

i see in the reality that surrounds me( of course ), the subject is

ultimately myself.

Is this need to show continuosly my inner core to the viewer......

From this follows the question: what is the real aim for an

artist?What is the purpose in art?

[michael_a._smith1]

Paul Klee said, "The function of art is to inspire other artists."

 

<p>

 

The real aim for the (visual) artist is to make the best pictures

(objects) you can, however one might define "best."

[joe_lipka3]

"To make the ordinary extraordinary."

 

<p>

 

Try to inspire as many people as you can. Artists are a small

percentage of the population.

[skygzr]

This might be overly simplistic, but I always thought an artist has

only one real mission: to show others how he sees the world.

[sandy_sorlien]

John Szarkowski divided photographs into two types, Mirrors and

Windows. Mirrors are, as you say, works that say more about the

photographer and his/her vision of the world. Windows supposedly show

more of an "objective" view of the world. These are useful categories

to debate, though ultimately we realize that all pictures have some

aspect of the Mirror in them.

 

<p>

 

I agree with Kevin. My purpose in art is to show you my vision of the

world.

 

<p>

 

I would add that an important component is the desire to communicate

with someone outside myself. I feel that "artists" who create alone

and never try to show or publish their work are missing some crucial

aspect of the artmaking process. (Even if it is just showing your

pictures or poems to your family.) Without that communication, it's

not art, it's therapy.

[john_sarsgard1]

For me, the first thing I intend to say with a photograph is "I have

something I want to show you." That something is a photograph, not a

building or a tree or a flower or a person, although those real world

things might participate in the photograph. I want it to be printed

well, but it might be a grainy image, or selectively focused, or have

black shadows, depending on the role those choices might play in what

I want to show you. For me, every part of the photograph needs to

have a role, from top to bottom and left to right. When I do my best

work, I start with something that attracts my attention, but I need to

make lots of further decisions to get from there to what I really want

to show you. FYI, to thank those who have helped, when I do all this

well it's because I'm remembering what Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee

taught me. And when I remember that I'm showing you a picture, not a

building.

[michael_a._smith1]

Many thanks, John. It is gratifying when we learn that those who have

taken our Vision and Technique Workshop really "got it." For others who

might be interested, Paula and I are teaching only one workshop this

year--the last weekend of September. It is already half full and

someone coming is all the way from New Zealand. Full details are on our

web site: www.michaelandpaula.com

[ernie_gec]

For many the real aim is to attract the best babes.

[james_chinn]

I believe the motivation of many artists is to try to reveal certain

aspects of themselves and at the same time try to get the viewer to

understand some aspect of the world in a new light.

 

<p>

 

I think that what seperates the artist from the craftsmen is the

ability of his work to carry on a dialogue with the viewer through

the work. It is not enough for the work to be pretty, or shocking or

different just for the sake of being different. I have always found

the most intriguing art is that which makes me ask questions of the

work and of myself. A great work always seems to have a little

something more to say or reveal every time I view it. This is true of

any medium and genre.

[hugo_j._zhang1]

To create a new world.

[jeff_buckels]

Sandy may be right that, if you make no effort to publish your work

(in any sense of the word "publish"), then it is just therapy. But

I'm not sure that's a problem. What if it is "just" therapy? D.H.

Lawrence wrote a characteristically irritating but valid essay called

"Art for My Sake." Pretty easy to run down. Anyway, I suppose that

art which amuses, amazes or educates others is better than

just-therapy but I'm not sure. I guess I'd be a little more sure if I

was a little more sure just what it is that art does for us "others."

But that's a difficult subject. Northrup Frye, easily the dominant

literary theorist of the Twentieth Century, tackled this matter in his

key work, THE ANATOMY OF CRITICISM. Basically, he threw up his hands

in the end and concluded that, well, the experience of great

literature "deepens the reader's sensibility" (or something like

that).... I'm pretty sure that when viewing a good picture I

experience "enjoyment." I do like that. So, in conclusion, perhaps

photographers have a social duty to show me their pictures so that I

might experience more, rather than less, enjoyment. I would have the

same duty, of course. -jeff buckels

[ellis_vener_photography]

What's the real aim for an artist? What is the purpose in art? <P>

<P>Judging by the way most of the ones I know act, I think

Conan the Barbarian said it best when he was asked what is

good:<P>

<I>"To crush your enemies, to drive them before you, and to hear

the lamentations of their women." </I><P>Personally my goal is

to enjoy life, to entertain, amaze and impress others, to eat

regularly and to pay my rent, my bills and taxes on time and also

to save for my children's education and my eventual retirement.

<P>But what does that haveto do with "art"? To quote jazz

musican Dizzy Gillespie:<I>" I'm tired of going down in history; I

want to eat"</I>

[ellis_vener_photography]

But on a more serious note; yes: if you see something that is in

inside you in the finished work, that is the right direction. To have

others recognize in your photograph something that is inside

them but that they were not yet aware of, that is the righter

direction

[emile_de_leon9]

Depending on the artist and their perceptions as a human being there

are many aims extant on this planet. Taking reincarnation into

account and the overall experience of the artist/soul on inner and

outer planes, roughly there are four levels with four

types......1.Commercial/repetitive,done by the thousands for sale

only.Example... certain craft type and also cheap religious art for

sale to the masses in quantity.2.Commercial, but on a higher level

for sale to wealthy people for fame and status only.3.Emotional Art,

not done for sale but for emerging perception and the search for

truth by the artist and their own individual quest as a result of

extreme emotional pain. ex.Van Gogh. 4. Spiritual, based on the

actual true realisations of the artist, not necessarily appearing

spiritual to the viewer but very real in a "being" sense ex.

Gauguin.This art bridges many worlds.Within these four levels there

are four types...a.inspirational, b.creative/unique, c.commanding,

d.informative.Obviously the more lifetimes spent on the planet the

more experience gained and the more perceptions are poured into the

art.Da Vince was a very old soul on the #4 level and of an

informational type. Food for thought.

[michael_feldman1]

Prose and photojournalism are an act of "showing". Poetry and fine

art are a "making", an act of the creative imagination. As such, art

is a mode of indirect communication. The "maker" of art may have no

more idea of the "true meaning" than the viewer.

[david_flockhart]

"The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see

without a camera."

 

<p>

 

--- Dorothea Lange

[jnorman2]

i like what lisette model taught dianne arbus - that to make your

work more general in nature would make it speak to the most people.

 

<p>

 

when i was younger, i thought i could control what a viewer saw when

they looked at my images. i worked very hard to very precisely

define what i was trying to convey with each photograph, but it was

like the harder i worked at making the image more specific, the less

effective the image was. then i realized that what people see when

they look at your work is very alrgely dependent on what they bring

with them - their personal experiences, thoughts and attitudes. so i

worked on model's idea and started making my images more generalized

while still containing the kernel of the idea i started with. i

remember having a couple of images included in a major exhibition of

2D artworks at the portland art museum a few years ago where i was

able to sort of sit nearby during the opening as people wandered

through the exhibit and getting to listen to them react to works as

they went by - i tried to pay attention to what they might say as

they first looked at my work. to say the least, i was amazed at some

of the comments i overheard. the two pieces i had in the exhibit

were rather odd self-portraits in uncommon settings. some people

reacted more to the setting of the picture than to the image per se -

"what a wierd place.." "what is that thing?" etc. others reacted

to the 'art' aspects, commenting about the print itself or the

overall composition. a few people responded to the self-portrait

concept wondering at my expression or my action "what is he doing?"

or "how did he do that?" out of the hundreds of people who passed by

my work, perhaps 3 or 4 made a comment that was in line with what i

was actually trying to say with the image - that really opened my

eyes. i think a lot of times, WE dont have any idea what a viewer

will see in our work.

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi Domenico

 

<p>

 

My viewpoint is very similar to James Chinn.

An truly artist has always something to communicate to the viewer.

Or in other words:" Art is the best form of communication"

 

<p>

 

Thats my viewpoint, good shooting.

[domenico_foschi]

Thank you everybody.

Thank you for sharing your beleves .I agreee with many of you,.

I believe that a true piece of art , a piece that transmits the

energy of the artist to the viewer , is beneficial to the artist ,who

releases some of his or her emotional baggage( therapy) and to

the viewer who can sense the primordial creative force.

Have you ever sensed , in front of an art piece, that hard to

describe sensation where you feel are in the presence of

something very powerful and beautiful?

Please tell me you have , because if you don't then i will see

myself forced to go back to therapy.....

 

<p>

 

I see the creative process as a form of prayer where i am finely

tuned (when it is really working!) with the creator .

So, Art has probably more than one aim.

Probably has nothing to do with Art itself, but with that misterious

design that we all are unconsciously working for...

It is probably about also showing to people that the boundaries

of beauty can be stratched infinitely.......

 

<p>

 

O.K. i have decided, i am off to therapy again, ....and all those

support groups,....what did they do for me?!!!

 

<p>

 

Thank you people for the intelligent and refreshing ideas....

Domenico

[jonathan brewer]

Viewing the world differently through the inspiration of another.

[scott_goins1]

the purpose of art is to wipe away the dust of everyday life. or so said picasso.

 

i suppose that would make the artist someone who helped to wipe away the dust from other people's everyday lives, a sort of gadfly of the aesthetic.