[Question] What makes you create?

Status
Not open for further replies.

GasBandit

Staff member
There's going to be quite a bit of subjectectivity involved in any discussion about what constitutes art, and what constitutes simple creation.

I'd say all dramatic art comes from pain because you can't have drama without conflict and conflict inevitably leads to pain.

However, there are many works of art, music, movies and books that aren't born from any sort of pain, but are celebrations of life and happiness.

I refuse to buy that only melodrama is considered art.
No, it's not.
 
I didn't at first get what you were replying to.

To me, whenever I hear that all art comes from suffering all I think is...

 

GasBandit

Staff member
I didn't at first get what you were replying to.


To me, whenever I hear that all art comes from suffering all I think is... Emo.
I think the fundamental disconnect here is two fold - you were talking about what constitutes art, I was talking about what makes for good art. Also, I didn't say all art has to BE angst, just that even "happy" art suffers if the artist has never felt anything worse than the proverbial "first world problem," as it makes even an expression of joy shallower, because he has no frame of reference.

All art does not come from suffering, but without experiencing suffering or struggle, an artist usually will lack the depth of character prerequisite to be a true artisan of joy.

The video you posted also shows that it runs the other way as well... even sad "art" is shallow when it's a bunch of suburbanites who've never had to actually suffer making it. And to attempt to fake it by pantomiming suffering leaves the listener feeling somewhat patronized, if not outright insulted.

Also, seat belts and air bags, kids.
 
art suffers if the artist has never felt...
I've always wondered about this assertion. One is basically arguing that children cannot create great art with depth due to lack of "life experience" and further this assertion encourages people to search out why an artist was able to create a great piece of art. See a great piece of art --> assume artist lost someone close to them, had a rough childhood, etc.

I would ask you to back up your assertion, but there's no way to prove or disprove it since art is ultimately subjective. You are welcome to try, of course, but I'm only here for the discussion and the nachos, so likely won't put up a spirited defense.

However, those two issues make me skeptical about the assertion that "without experiencing suffering or struggle, an artist usually will lack the depth of character prerequisite to be a true artisan of joy."
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I've always wondered about this assertion. One is basically arguing that children cannot create great art with depth due to lack of "life experience" and further this assertion encourages people to search out why an artist was able to create a great piece of art. See a great piece of art --> assume artist lost someone close to them, had a rough childhood, etc.

I would ask you to back up your assertion, but there's no way to prove or disprove it since art is ultimately subjective. You are welcome to try, of course, but I'm only here for the discussion and the nachos, so likely won't put up a spirited defense.

However, those two issues make me skeptical about the assertion that "without experiencing suffering or struggle, an artist usually will lack the depth of character prerequisite to be a true artisan of joy."
The art of children is not so deep as what we ascribe to it. So much of how we behave toward children is evolutionary programming. As a counterpoint, how many times have you heard, "What is this? A 4 year old could do this 'art.'"
 
The art of children is not so deep as what we ascribe to it.
Again, this means we should only approach art with the knowledge of the artist. I'm thinking art should stand, or fall, on its own.

In other words, are you saying that in blind A-B testing, a person should be able to tell the difference between an artist who has suffered and/or experienced life and someone who has not, based solely on the art presented?

I suspect that if we took the same set of paintings, gave them two bios - one with an artist that has suffered great strife and come through it a better person, the other a newly-minted art school graduate with no difficulties, and displayed them to audiences in various parts of the art world, people would ascribe things to the art that aren't actually there.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
In other words, are you saying that in blind A-B testing, a person should be able to tell the difference between an artist who has suffered and/or experienced life and someone who has not, based solely on the art presented?
Such would not be ironclad, as as you allude, a lot of art's "value" is subjective and in the eye of the beholder, and even that notwithstanding, even blind pigs find corn occasionally. Moreover, the thing about using "a person" to judge things is you run a high risk of running into people who think Twilight is the height of cinema (so no wonder they wrote a book from it! /headdesk, /headdesk). But really, if you were to take a skid mark from some tighty-whiteys and tell people "find meaning in this," they'll be able to. After all, a lot of people bought tickets.
 
Which brings us around to who is allowed to judge what is art and what isn't.

And for the record, the correct answer to "find meaning in this skid mark" is "You need better hygiene skills."
 
I really love the contrasting of colors, the use of warm tones in the center of the cloud really work to evoke the feelings of rage and anger that went into the work, while it's stark contrast with the cold and desolate devastation around it, clearly shows the artist's own isolation and struggle to find meaning and beauty in world around them.
 
And in the other corner:

It's like the heavens taking a massive chili shit. Looks like some serious bhut jolokia action there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top