Can Art be a Goal or is Art what we call Work that Sustains our Interest?

[mizore]

<p>Oh, let's have a macro snap of a fly's butt.</p><div></div>

[mizore]

<p>I feel almost like I created a monster with this thread, not that it hasn't been an entertaining and intellectually challenging and passionate monster, not too shabby looking, either, after a while. "Will it stop at 50 responses? 80 response? 113 responses? Could I possibly correct my typos? Am I going to say something unforgivably rude about something dear to another person's heart?"</p>

<p>Couple of times, I thought we'd come to a stopping place. I guess now are there sub-topics of this one that might be useful? Or is this going to continue? I think it's becoming rather long for anyone dropping in new to read through and follow, or is it?</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Rebecca, I wouldn't apologize for your so-called "monster". There is so little discussion of philosophy and art, and especially discussion that is clear and logical (we just have to reflect on some of the opaque statements coming from professional revues, from some galleries and even from the artists themselves, not to mention some art critics) that any dicussion is worthwhile. Even if the premise is sometimes vague, the ensuing discussion can uncover a few gems of thought now and then. The length of the post is relatively unimportant, I think, as in any case the discussion often goes off in various tangents before coming back (and in some cases the latter doesn't even happen).</p>

<p>There is another post now called "big fish" in which, in my opinion, a lot has been said already in little space. that happens and it is gratifying also to see that. But the more people we can get to speak in a profound way about their photography, what they are trying to achieve and how they see that in a philosophical manner, the better.</p>

[richard watts]

<p>Perhaps this is my cue since I found this discussion last night. I am not yet on top of all of the underlying themes but it has been fascinating and thought provoking to dip into at various points. So not too long but I am yet to sort out what, if anything, I have concluded from it!</p>

<p>Regarding the original question, my predjudice is that art is about the exploration and communication of ideas and emotions and without the intent you might fluke it but most wont. I also struggle with this concept of "I do it exclusively for myself". I am a scientist so I come with the professional baggage that work not communicated might as well never have been done, but surely most practicing artists want to share their work and have an impact on the lives of other people too.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Richard: Nice to hear your views, which I completely agree with.</p>

<p>The thread could take off again at millions miles an hour because it is possible to find exceptions.</p>

<p>There has always been a strong school of thought that favours the "it ain't art 'til its seen, heard or read" argument, the same camp would also favour the idea that its not art unless the author makes a conscious decision to name it as such. Again I strongly support this way of thinking.</p>

<p>Your comments re: "I do it exclusively for myself" are a lot more problematic because a lot of great, good or otherwise artists who regularly exhibit/publish their work make statements like this. They don't mean it the way that I think you intended us to read it.</p>

<p>Doing it exclusively for yourself is an exceptionally good technique for getting in touch with all that is important to you. Probably best/regularly seen/heard with jazz players.</p>

<p>So you can have "I do it exclusively for myself" art that is published etc.</p>

<p>All the best Clive</p>

<p> </p>

[richard watts]

<p>Thanks Clive, your interpretation of "I do it exclusively for myself" makes a lot more sense than mine did. It raises an interesting question of when do you share, because sharing work you haven't fully assimilated yourself will almost inevitably lead to your being influenced by the response of your audience. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing of course if communication with others is important to you. I enjoy sharing my experiments but I have found in the past that it can lead to a form of group-think and a need for acceptance that inhibits me. But this is probably a topic for a different discussion.</p>

[warren_wilson]

<p>By the time I had finished a few graduate degrees I was pretty tired of how academia could manage to sound so pompously high-minded by compulsively focusing on trivial distinctions: the wry joke was<br>

Q: Why are faculty politics so vicious?<br>

A: Because the stakes are so small.</p>

<p>Not that I would accuse anyone here of that — as I've read the gist of this thread it's been thought-provoking — but it does sound to me like some of Rebecca's colleagues are trying to make a virtue of picking fly shit out of pepper.</p>

<p>I recently read Malcolm Gladwell's <em>Outliers</em> . As both a pianist and photographer, it made me painfully aware that I have not yet put in 10,000 hours in either art. But I do tend to think that art extends upwards from craft rather than emerging above as a lofty academic construct tumescent with verbiage, kindly provided to give us lowly practitioners something to worship.</p>

<p>Art might very well be the most refined expression of craft. Are there great artists in any medium who have not first been great craftsmen?</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Richard: I think I'm very unusual in that my studio is open to the public which, in terms of your question, means that I share all the time. Most of the questions fall into the "how do you do it, how long does it take, who buys them etc" categories, but often enough people give you insights or set you back on your haunches by saying something that you'd never thought through very well.</p>

<p>With me there is a bit of the crusader in having the studio open as I kind of believe that artists owe it to the public (in all its shapes and sizes) to be available to discuss anything they may want to know. Art is, after all, shrowded in myth and many of these are quite wickedly exploited by artists.</p>

<p>This may sound like a contradiction but I left the city because I felt that I was almost making art by committee with many other artists filing through the studio and now I let everybody do it. But the difference is that you get all views not just those of the in-vogue artist.</p>

<p>The greatest benefit to me is that I know exactly whether I'm communicating or not.</p>

<p>Warren: In fine art craft has become an ugly word. I think this evolved rapidly in the 60's when artists (painters and sculptors mainly) consciously set out to purge art of every remaining element that could associate the new (modern) with the art of the past.</p>

<p>The way for American art to knock Picasso off his pedestal was to emphasise his old fashioned traits and describe them as weaknesses. Skill in drawing, skill in any of the traditional components of art making were denounced. In sculpture this even went as far as associating any traditonal material or technique with the past regardless of the purpose they were being used for.</p>

<p>All that said, if we mean a kind of competance by the word craft, the 10,000 hours is probably close to what is a basic requirement - isn't that just 2 years? my maths isn't good.</p>

<p><em>Are there great artists in any medium who have not first been great craftsmen?</em></p>

<p>In the visual arts, Prior to 1950, No, between 1950 and 1970 a few, since 1970 many or even most.</p>

<p>In music probably just about all, but I'll qualify that saying adequate crafts people as opposed to great - photography similar.</p>

<p>De-skilling art has a nice philosophical ring to it but it ignores the truth that the evolved skills allowed for almost unlimited flexibility, choice of action and adjustment by the artist. By comparison much of what has been done since the 70's has relied on the artist designing and often getting other people to do it for them. It does have one advantage - lots can be produced but at the expense of a huge amount of flexibility. - Clive</p>

<p> </p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>What is 'Art'? What is 'Literature'? Unless these terms are clearly defined the discussion will revolve around their meaning and the original question<br>

"Is trying to write Literature or make Art over all other considerations useful? Why?"<br>

I could be wrong in this presumption but I'd have said the purpose of creating 'works' is to make money, whether through commission, or speculative creation - effectively creating it for another party. It is the judgment of worth that the other party makes against the price paid for, and retained by, the work that defines whether 'art' or 'literature' has been created, presuming 'art' and 'literature' are, at the end of the day, commercial entities - which I would suggest they are.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> <strong>Steve Hipperson typed - "</strong> I could be wrong in this presumption but I'd have said the purpose of creating 'works' is to make money..."</p>

<p> That's exactly what commercial art is. As Ralph Gibson put it, commercial photographers photograph to make money, artists make money to photograph. There are few worse ways to attempt to make money than non-commercial art.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>As Luis says (to Stephen's take on this topic), that is commercial art. Non-commercial art is often done simply for the love of artistic expression, not often as a means to make money beyond that of basic living and art materials expenses. The distinction between commercial artists (or photographers) and the fine arts or contemporary arts practitioners is not always an easily drawn line in the sand.</p>

<p>It is fun to recognize though that the highest paid artists are mostly those who are or who have worked in the non-commercial art arena. </p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>This thread amazes me because it just wont go bed.</p>

<p>With Stephen's new posting my first reaction was a simple to say "no, wrong" but that doesn't get us anywhere does it? As fate would have it, (it was 6am when I read the posting) I heard a cockrel crow somewhere off in the distance on the other side of the road.</p>

<p>Which made me remember the old story of the chicken crossing the road.</p>

<p>Why did the chicken cross the road?</p>

<p>To get to the other side, to show all chickens that it could be done, to get to more food, to play chicken with the traffic, because she was egged on by other chickens (sorry for corn), because she was an explorer, because she was either a genius or crazy - and on we go.</p>

<p>Many of the reasons why artists do what they do are bound up in the the chicken crossing the road story. Few have anything at all to do with money and most revolve around ideas of achievement, discovery and immortality.</p>

<p>I would go as far to say that by far the most prevalent goal is to create something that all other artists have to take notice of, which in effect, then changes the topogragphy of playing field creating new opportunities for all that follow.</p>

<p>Immortality is an interesting phenomena because the ability to acrue wealth is very low on the list of things that will guarantee that a person is remembered, even at a family level.</p>

<p>The writer, painter, explorer, musician, sports star, general, clock maker and quilter beat the business person every time (unless they were sent to jail) in the immortality stakes.</p>

<p>Clive</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"Few (<em>of the reasons that artists do what they do</em>) have anything at all to do with money and most revolve around ideas of achievement, discovery and immortality."</p>

<p>2/3rds right, I believe. Neither the chicken versus the road (a good example - and "because it is there"), or the artist, really do their thing for immortality, also known as the long term result of fame. Yes, we would all like to be remembered or immortalized decades or centuries after our deaths, but it ain't going to happen. One of my stone sculptor friends may have works that outlast other works, but nobody can tell whether they will be noticed more than the stone window surrounds of an old building centuries from now. So the pleasure of discovery and the personal achievement of succeeding in our approach/objectives, are much more realisable goals and ones we can measure directly by ourselves.</p>

<p>Those two considerations rule out others suggested in the question of the OP, except perhaps the basic "need to survive" ones common to all humans and animals.</p>

<p>Doing the unusual and breaking barriers has always fascinated the onlooker. Upon being sucked into a local metropolis on a major artery a few years ago, we and other motorised suburbans were slowed down to a crawl by the sight of a Mama (or Papa) goose proudly strutting across the 8 lanes of dense traffic with a half dozen chicks in tow (they made it, to the pleasure of the crawling onlooking cars). Unusual, daunting, discover, achievement, all rolled into one action. Like the communication of a superior work of art, suddenly stumbled upon by visitors to a small gallery room.</p>

<p> </p>

[mizore]

<p>Clive, famous after you're dead is the ultimate in delayed gratification. I think the thing with commercial work is that it's rarely if ever delusional about its minimal competence -- someone who can't interview people, who can't summarize isn't going to get a job as a journalists on even a weekly newspaper. Some who can't take an well-lighted photograph showing the product in an identifiable way isn't going to get work as a commercial photographer. But often that's good enough.</p>

<p>Fine artists can be delusional about their competence, can be better than any commercial artist -- there's no floor and no ceiling either. I met a person who was a self-described poet who made me realize how many of them there are out there and how poorly they look -- no real competence at anything people pay for, a bit crazy, and all.</p>

<p>Someone who was writing song lyrics at the Brill Building was going to have a certain competence with words, but William Butler Yeats, Frank O'Hara, Allen Ginsberg, Marianne Moore, etc. are better poets, though Ginsberg and Yeats were the only ones to make a living through poetry (Yeats with a patron; Ginsberg with performances, though he was an academic later. Any number of poets manque aren't better than a competent song writer.</p>

<p>The capacity for both delusion and transcendence are greater among the fine artists than among the commercial artists, perhaps. Nothing say that a commercial artist can't also be transcendent, especially when he's co-owner of the Globe (it appears that early, Shakespeare resented having to write for the general public; later, with <em>The Tempes</em>t, he seems to have both come to terms with the audience and to be walking away from the magic. Henry Cartier Bresson walked away from photography to return to drawing and painting.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Listening to the comments of others on their oeuvre or their approach, or that of others, is a fools game beyond a very limited point. The succcessful artist, one that I admire and hope to emulate, is able to divorce himself from the crowd, and be concerned personally with his or her sense of discovery, aesthetic, approach and achievement.</p>

<p>He or she is an island. Lonely worlds are the domain of artists, writers and composers. Those "workshops" are nonetheless highly efficient ones, free of extraneous considerations.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Arthur--</strong></p>

<p>Do you think Sartre, de Beauvoir, and Camus or Kaufman, Parker, and Ferber or Bazin, Truffaut, Godard, and Rohmer were playing fools games? </p>

<p>I don't see the independence and creativity of an artist necessarily or even likely to be undermined by listening, sharing, learning, cooperating, and schmoozing. I think the artist with a vision can use relationships with others (artists and non-artists) in as stimulating a way as possible and still create from within and on his or her own terms. To me, it would be a weak person who had to live in the sort of vacuum you describe in order to develop an individual voice.</p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5581841">Clive Murray-White</a> "This thread amazes me because it just wont go bed."<br>

It amazes me that you want to 'close' any thread - is this place a 'closed shop'? An elitist community perhaps? I think not. <br>

"Many of the reasons why artists do what they do are bound up in the the chicken crossing the road story. Few have anything at all to do with money and most revolve around ideas of achievement, discovery and immortality." -<br>

Stroking (to use a term I've picked up from somewhere). 'Artists' are no different to anybody else who practices a craft, ultimately they crave recognition, acceptance and praise - it's a standard human condition, nothing to do with the fact their chosen 'game' is painting, sculpting, or photography. My missus is learning to play the piano, fine, nothing wrong with that, but she's going for the grades, why? Acceptance/recognition. A photographer enters portfolio into one of the society grading structures, why? Acceptance/recognition. <br>

If something is beautiful (in our eyes), does that make it Art? No, of course not, though we often try to capture what we perceive to be beauty with our photography. But does the resulting image become Art - not in my book. (I use beauty as a representative element of aesthetic appreciation). (I'm sorry I'm an aethist, so I can't accept the 'artistic hand of god'). <br>

As individuals we cannot define our craft as 'Art'. This is for others to do. Ultimately one piece of 'Art' has to be measured against another piece of 'Art' or, I guess, an individual's value scale. If an individual posseses something that they consider 'Art' and somebody else doesn't, in fact the consesus of all their contacts is that the piece is a worthless piece of junk, does the work become devalued against the person's value scale, possibly, (I suspect that some might choose to remove the piece from view, in case they are judged against the piece (their taste). Of course everybody's 'value scale' is different to everyone elses. Rightly or wrongly the calibration scale we use to get some semblance of reckoning is a financial one. Any commodity is valued like this, be it Art or a spanner. (Personally, I think Art should have some of the properties of a spanner).<br>

So if Art is a goal, it's about commercial value attached to the work. What sustains us in our interest is the perfection of our craft and the realisation in physical terms of our mind's eye - for others to appreciate perhaps, perhaps not.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"Do you think Sartre, de Beauvoir, and Camus or Kaufman, Parker, and Ferber or Bazin, Truffaut, Godard, and Rohmer were playing fools games?"</p>

<p>Fred, my comment finished with "beyond a very limited point". Which is to say that I believe that of the mix of (1) Information Sharing, (2) Inspiration and (3) Perspiration, as components of an artists work, I would venture that the ratio in percentage of time or commitment might typically (although there is really no "typical") be 10%, 5% and 85%, respectively.</p>

<p>In my comments I was reacting a bit angrily (not personally, but in a context situation) to the myriad of references in the above thread to the business of worrying what others may be doing, or for what purpose (theirs, not ours) and the relevance of this or that literary, artistic or photographic group or movement to our work.</p>

<p>Many seem in these photo forums to be so fixed by what former artists (literary, photographic, other) have done, rather than what we think and believe as practicing photographers. Philosophy is a personal process and a personal intellectual position. Let's hope that we hear more personal postulates in that sense. I can always read the philosophy and approach of other artists in the literature (which I do), or at meetings with artist friends.</p>

<p>Back to the mix of information sharing versus the process of creation. Do you or others think that about 10% is ample. That is certainly a limiting point for me. Otherwise, I would not spend enough time on the perspiration bit.</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p> <strong>Arthur - </strong> "He or she is an island. Lonely worlds are the domain of artists, writers and composers. Those "workshops" are nonetheless highly efficient ones, free of extraneous considerations."</p>

<p> Feral children are not islands, nor are artists. To be sure, there are lone wolves in any human endeavor, including art, but they usually have some social contact. Arthur, might you be misconstruing the individuation of the artist for isolation? Artists belong to a vast subculture with a multitude of globally interconnecting nodes. They, like all human beings, thrive on social contact, exchanging feelings, skills, discoveries, and ideas resulting in well-known influences.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Hi Luis, I appreciate what you say, and believe the same. </p>

<p>My response above to Fred indicates what I think is a reasonable mix of information acquisition and sharing versus the individual creation process in an artist's life. I acknowledge that it may be different for different persons. Ask any serious writer or music composer how demanding is his life, when he is in the creative process. It can be (and often needs to be) somewhat similar to incarceration. </p>

<p>However, I was reacting against the themes of some posts in which tangential and third party observations were predominant. We should perhaps spend more time in the first person rather than in the third person in these threads. On our personal philosophy of photography.</p>

<p>It is cold outside today, so I am willing to take the heat (and valuable counter arguments) of irate fellow posters.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> In my case, I belong to several informal, free-form groups of artists, and like so many others, find potent (and sometimes inexplicable) ties to many individuals, many who happen to live in other countries. Locally, I hang with only a handful photographers, mostly with painters, jazz musicians, a rapper or two, a few grafitti artists and poets.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur--</p>

<p>I hope I didn't come across as irate and I'm sorry that I didn't take your comment more specifically within the context of what was happening in this particular thread. I agree, more first person sharing would suit me fine as well. I think the topic of this specific thread seemed to veer more to what others do, but I think some threads are started in a much more personalized way and go that way . . . empathy, cliché, biography, voyeurism.</p>

<p>It was, indeed, your use of "beyond a very limited point" that didn't strike me as applicable to me. I wouldn't want to quantify what I think is a reasonable mix of sharing in an artist's life. I'm not sure I could quantify it even for myself. Artists create and work in all different ways. Some have to collaborate . . . playwrights, directors, actors, architects, orchestra and band musicians. Some live out by a pond and are hermits. Some live in the inner city and are hermits. Others live in the inner city and involve themselves only in group projects where the idea is not to individuate their artistic talents but thrive in community endeavors. Some live in the inner city and work alone but probably spend closer to 50 per cent or more of their time actively engaging with others, discussing, sharing, riffing off each other even with brush strokes.</p>

<p>I think both art and philosophy are as much a dialogue (taking place across centuries) as an isolating experience. Not only are philosophers still answering questions that Plato, Descartes, and Kant asked, they are studying those masters precisely in order to gain their own voice, just as each of those masters did. And philosophy, often done within the walls of academia, is very much a communal project. Much thought throughout history has grown out of philosophical lectures and debates . . . dialogues, symposiums, conferences. Rarely does one publish a philosophy paper or book without prior feedback from many sources. Check the footnotes and acknowledgments of most philosophy books being produced today and you will see how this feedback forms a sizable portion of the ideas eventually engendered. Most published philosophers send their works first to an array of readers which often impacts the work enormously, sometimes forming many of the key underlying principles. Hell, Plato's body of work is all a bunch of dialogues between Socrates and others. Philosophy of his day was not a matter of isolation.</p>

<p>As for speaking personally, one of the more personal things written on this thread was my post about halfway through about my own sense of internalized homophobia and how that might relate to "declaring" oneself an artists. It got zero response. A couple of others went into personal stories and really gave of themselves. Most did not even acknowledge these personal stories and certainly didn't add any of their own. Getting personal, speaking about me instead of them, talking about how I work and what I think and feel is harder that talking in abstractions. It scares a lot of people. On that point, we are in complete agreement.</p>

[mizore]

<p>Fred, I understand the difficulty of declaring oneself an artist in a world where the arts are only valued if they make serious amounts of money (Emily Dickinson couldn't have bought a volume of Browning's work for what she was paid for her poetry in her lifetime). One male poet's family sent him to a shrink who explained that the realistic thing to do was get a Ph.D. and teach (he had money and married a woman lawyer later in life). I've met the people who took this advice and most of them aren't people I'd have wanted to be, and few of them seem happy at the more average schools (teaching at schools where one is likely to have students who have the advantages necessary to become poets themselves seems to be better).</p>

<p>When people talk about superiority to the crowd, I tend to think they're using Art as a defense mechanism against being one of the crowd or less . I think that other people escape their groups, the expectations of those with power over them, in different ways, have their own battles with a society that needs them more as functions than as individuals. I used to think if I made it in the arts, that would vindicate me, make me more than a poorly paid adjunct, more than an editorial secretary. </p>

<p>Then I found that doing certain sorts of writing would make me one of the crowd, not really a literary artist, in some people's eyes, and that others would patronize me for being a popular culture artist who obviously isn't individuated, but relies on the Zeitgeist, whose work isn't my work, but the mass mind working through me. I think the reason I couldn't also be a poet for those people was that poetry is the heroic anti-mass culture art of the day, Ginsberg's genuine popular success not withstanding. When I was turning to s.f., my graduate advisor was not happy and predicted that I would return to poetry after the aridities of science fiction. When I was an adjunct, people were surprised that my former faculty thought of me as a poet (I'm not the only woman who's done both s.f. and poetry, either).</p>

<p>I'm no longer in academia. Right now, I'm a "between contracts" unemployed technical writer (the money is so much better and I can apparently collect unemployment between gigs which adjuncts can't do, and it's better than writing children's books). My next book will be out from a small feminist press. The back of my brain is whispering, "photonovelas." I'm going to St. Louis to take photos of a friend and his dog for gas money after Thanksgiving.<br>

Me, I was up for being a poet long before I was willing to admit that I liked guys far better as friends, and the attraction to women scared me.</p>

<p>I was actually afraid of poetry, too. My mother told me that poets had unhappy lives. I think that's because they leave more records. I certainly know poets who are quite happy, plenty who aren't any more unhappy than any number of other people.</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred -</p>

<p>I think you have well addressed in your last post the dynamic of individual versus collectively induced creativity. One nuance of the discussion is something we possibly haven't stated - the difference between an appetite for discussion with fellow artists and learning and subsequent individual creation, and on the other hand, the appetite for discussion with fellow artists and learning and the subsequent individual creation "too encumberd" by the approaches and ideas of others. I think we have to be at least wary of the danger of the latter.</p>

<p>As for learning and exchanging, I attended not too long ago two evening college courses of the art department (color and its application, and a basic history of art course) and intend to continue other searches the same next winter. There is also an artist cooperative group in Quebec City that I may join, if for no other reason than to acquire additional knowledge and exchanges not possible just by reading.</p>

<p>Those wishing a popular but thoughtful and simple introduction to philosophy (that even an engineer like myself can understand) might like to read the short text "Consolations of Philosophy" by Alain de Botton (ISBN: 0-679-77917-5), the Swiss-British writer. This and his other books show him as someone capable of thinking outside of the box.</p>

<p>If misery loves bedfellows, Rebecca might be interested to know that my artistic pretentions and individualness get fully diluted each year when I hire myself out to a major research institution each autumn and spring to act as their technical writer, turning out inspired but effectively uninteresting (to me) reports on technical obstacles and uncertainties of 50 or so research projects, intended to obtain income tax credits (a sorry end for a PhD who desires creation rather than sublimation....). Ah well....,</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Fred --</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for speaking personally, one of the more personal things written on this thread was my post about halfway through about my own sense of internalized homophobia and how that might relate to "declaring" oneself an artists. It got zero response.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I (and I'm sure many others) heard you. You made your point very convincingly and in a way that I had not thought of before. I tend to only post when I disagree or feel something is going unsaid. </p>