i present first to you the
painting of today:
and i hope you like the song i put
out. its by Marsen Jules titled Datura.
check him out, enter his page, then click "about".
he just a new album out.
pretty creative stuff of how he decribe his
music.
anyway,
my last-last post about animation
nearly blew some stuff.
it actually were causing tense
around.
example, my ex lecturer actually
sent me an email.
he was pretty upset.
but i explained to him in a nice
email stating that the post wasn't
targeted on him, and that he shouldn't
take it too personally.
and my artist friend, nearly
pulled the plug. but after some safe
conversation, we were saved.
thank God.
atleast the force still want us
to go for it, eh?
anyway, on behalf of everyone who
got offended of what i say,
i apologize.
and i'll try to reach my point in
a more gentle/proper way next time.
and so, for today, i've agreed with my
artist friend that the topic for this
post will be about "payin up".
despise all hard effort and passion
you put into a work, or how efficient
and discipline you were towards the
project. if the client doesn't pay,
we go dry.
our passion/fuel goes dry.
we are artist. and we are humans too.
and we need to eat. and live.
(speakin on behalf of the entire planet's
hard-earned labor underpaid workers out
there who haven't got paid till this very
friggin day by asshole-slimy bosses.)
and i salute/respect people who buys
paintings. and i'm talkin about the authentic
art lovers here, excuse me. who could
see through passion and blood in works.
who could tell what's genuinely ugly
or plastically beauty.
and to the people who simply are just
supporting artist to survive. people
who understand the existence of life requires
artist to enlighten them. to entertain
them, in the terms of commercialism.
to tell them, the truth.
and you'll see why it is so important of
the roles we play in life.
the responsibility of voices.
move a nation.
or shamble one on a bumpy road?
i would like to thank to the people
who supported and helped us.
and cursed upon you who did not pay.
-chinyew
Posts
27 comments:
I think the most important question that we have to ask ourselves, as artists, is one of intent. What, exactly, is the artist's intention for this thing that they've created? What effect, exactly, is it supposed by the artist to have on others? It seems to me that this particular aspect of the question of intent is strangely absent from most so-called critical thinking about contemporary art.
i agree, but doesnt the artist usually pontificate on that more than anyone cares to know?
i mean, no one writes manifestos anymore, but museums still have to summarize the litany of intentions just to make it presentable to the public.
also, the post i objected to earlier made a definite statement with a clear boundary for what is an artist, and as much as you insinuated it as being an affliction, it also seems to function as a badge of pride for you, coming full circle again in my objection to the notion that the artist is in any way more noble or harder working than some dude with a 9-5.
all that talk leads to the geezers in the junior college art classes talking down to people because they dont have the "constitution" to do art. BS sacralization based on specialized skills at their age. it's exhausting and false.
i'm not asking you to apologize, i'm stating how offensive this "outsiders only" mentality that afflicts the art world is.
Very precise words: intent and effect.
They are really at the core of any discussion about art.
I remember my teacher 25 years ago talking to my class of teenagers that groumbled about a short story which annoyed us. He said that that was good. The writer had gotten a reaction. That was the main thing. That has stayed with me ever since.
I do not like some of contemporary art and a do not understand quite a bit of it, but if I can see an intent and feel its effect then that visit to that gallery is not wasted.
LOL I went into the timetunnel in the big contemporary art senter in Newcastle this summer and there were no problem both seeing the intent, understanding it, relating to it and not to mention feeling the effect. Lost most of my balance while walking through it LOL.
Trine
what I really wanted to say was that;
Yes, I think the intent of the artist is important as well as having an effect on the audience/viewer/reader
BUT equally the viewer/reader/... has to meet the work with an intent to let himself or herself be open to that intent/effect.
Even the best art work can not do its job if people are not willing to meet it. Some people love our work and that is nice, some dislike it and that isn't so nice always BUT the worst kind is the kind that strolles through the gallery without even bothering to look or be open to it at all.
As to describing the intent to the audience, short descriptions is nice or a telling title, especially for people that are new to art and children. I became so impressed with the extra info in the big galleries in UK when I visited with my kids when they were small.
Too detailed descriptions of intent can be bad too because that guides the viewer/reader's reactions a bit too much. LOL like I had to do for "Apple of Eva"
Trine
Rez:Quote:
it also seems to function as a badge of pride for you
So, you're saying that I should not have pride? Or what, exactly?
Come to think of it, according to YAWEH (aka the Big Prick in the Sky), "pride" is one of the 7 deadly sins...
Quote:
the worst kind is the kind that strolles through the gallery without even bothering to look or be open to it at all.
You've said a mouthfull there, brother.
i'm saying about that particular statement is that it comes off as saying being an artist is something worth suffering through because in some pseudo abstract way it makes you an outside entity. an alternative, a minority, and therefore a dynamic prescence.
i disagree with that because i feel that most artists/designers who affect this way of thinking come off as contrived, false, and choose to emphasize or even fabricate eccentricities to give their underdeveloped ideas some cred.
I have no ideas.
Quote:
most artists/designers who affect this way of thinking come off as contrived, false, and choose to emphasize or even fabricate eccentricities to give their underdeveloped ideas some cred.
Isn't that taking it a bit too far????
The slightly eccentric artists that I know or know of are both genuinly eccentric (or should I say more individualistic than most people) and their ideas are quite interestingly well developed.
But we might have met or know of very different kinds of artists. I too dislike affected or false people.
Trine
Come to think of it, according to YAWEH (aka the Big Prick in the Sky), "pride" is one of the 7 deadly sins...
Hamlet-I'm sorry but this is one of the reasons I left this board before. Do you think you could refrain from that?
And my two cents about the whole thing is:Just because you are misunderstood doesn't make you an artist.
Sunny, thank you for insight and wisdom. I agree.
And thank you for calling Hamlet on his rudeness. It seems that in the past few months he's showing his true colors.
Hamlet - You are being rude knock it off. I'm sure that no one wants to be part of a community where remarks like that are tolerated.
namaste
RDW
Alright you guys - this is an interesting discussion, but it's starting to have less and less to do with chinyew's original post and more and more to do with personal attacks, which aren't beneficial to anyone or this community.
So...instead of me playing thought police and telling who to say what and when and to whom (which happens enough in this country these days) I will just say:
Hamlet, and everyone else, please try to be courteous to people's feelings and beliefs, and respect them. RDW and Sunny - sorry that you were offended, but I personally wouldn't want to be part of a community that didn't allow people to speak their minds, even if the way they do it is offensive at times. Hopefully Hamlet will respect your opinions on future posts.
As for this thread, if you want to keep posting, stick to the topic, or something productive and related to the topic at the very least. Now back to your regularly scheduled forum...
So back to the themes
SO what are other people's thought on the 30days challenge which we were told about?
Or any kind of art "boot camp" or taking time off to just concentrate on one's art? Is it productive?
Would you consider doing something similar to the 30daychallenge?
What are your thoughts on being an artist?
Is it a special gift only for the few or something in everyone? Or something in between? Where on that big divide do you think the answer lies? (Let's just agree that there is no true answer but lots of opinions and just state those opinions and not define each other as artists or not)
Is there a big difference between us hobbyists doing it on our spare time (LOL often finally finding time and energhy after kicking the kids out of the nest) and the more conventional artists who has studied art and/or dedicated his or her carriere or life to it from the start?
Is art all about intent and effect? How important are skills or talent?
Is it typical for real art/artists not to be recognized or understood or appreciated in the start or only after a long time - maybe only after the artist is dead like some say?
To what degree can real art be commercialized and still be real art? To what degree is commercialized art real art? (my definition: commercial art= art made to be easily sold) We all have to eat and pay the bills or materials.
Feel free to add any subthemes I might have forgotten.
Trine
Heh, this has been an interesting discussion...
In response to both the original pose and mtv65, I don't know exactly where I stand on the 30 day artist thing. I think it's certainly a learning experience, and an interesting way of introducing one into the "art world", if you can call it that.
However, I'm not so sure I like the idea of a 30 day program making a cookie-cutter artist. But hey, who am I to judge? I've never done it before, so of course I'm going to be a bit skeptical. If chinyew wants to do it, I say go for it. Hell, why not?
As for hobbyists and conventional artists, of course they're different. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other, however. Studying art does not necessarily hold you above some one who's never even cracked open an art history text book. IMO it's simply about the time and effort you put into your work.
mtv65 wrote:
To what degree can real art be commercialized and still be real art? To what degree is commercialized art real art? (my definition: commercial art= art made to be easily sold) We all have to eat and pay the bills or materials.
Just because it's commercial doesn't mean it isn't "real art". If you take a look at most video games and CG/concept work, there are some incredible illustrations and designs. And I suppose we can call video game art commercial art considering it appeals to a wide audience.
...I'm not sure how much of my post made sense, but I haven't gotten much sleep in the past few days, hehe.
yes, yes, the point is the thing... back to the point.
It seems to me that the debate is over what makes an artist?
Let's start by defining "artist."
From dictionary.com
art·ist Pronunciation Key (ärtst)
n.
1. One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.
2. A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill: You are an artist in the kitchen.
3. One, such as an actor or singer, who works in the performing arts.
4. One who is adept at an activity, especially one involving trickery or deceit: a con artist.
[French artiste, from Old French, lettered person, from Medieval Latin artista, from Latin ars, art-, art. See ar- in Indo-European Roots.]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
artist
n : a person whose creative work shows sensitivity and imagination [syn: creative person]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
If we agree upon the definition(s) then we are all artists in our own rights? It's not HOW you got there is it? And I don't agree that it's always the intent.
I happened to see a mathematician at work today and I was inspired by her insight and her ability to help her students discover patterns... shapes and forms in numbers... It gave me goosebumps. I would have to say that she is an artist but, her journey - her passion - was so dissimilar to mine. I'd like to believe that it's the journey and the passion that defines us - not the PhD nor any other sheepskin - not the fact that we may have been blessed with patrons or travel in "the right" artsy crowd.
I'd like to believe that when viewed or played or computed that the audience, of their own free will, can make a connection of some sort. Will it always be a positive connection? No. A perfect example - Monet's contemporaries snubbed his work. Some still do. Monet continued painting because it was a journey of exploration and a passion.
The point is that the artist must first view him/herself as an artist or passionate person and must be willing to accept, learn from, ignore, or reject what the audience has to say and soldier on.
sorry, I had my philosopizer hat on...
chinyew - soldier on
namaste
RDW
Quote:
who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value,
Good one
I'm an artist Jippiii. I created work that some found of aestetic value
Trine
Quote:
who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value,
Good one
I'm an artist Jippiii. I created work that some found of aestetic value
Trine
Okay, so I didn't have time, nor the patience to read all of the posts on this topic, but I can tell you what I think about artists. I think everyone is an artist. Construction workers (it takes hard work and dedication), poets (words are just as much art as anything else), race car drivers (not everyone can drive a car like they can, it takes skill and art in that subject) and so on. It's a matter of what your tallented in. There is a difference between an artist and professional artists, though. You may have a gift for art, but you might not pursue it in a career. You are still a gifted artist, though. If you decide to pursue it, and become known, then you are a professional. Everyone is an artist, everyone is exceptionally good at something, and some have it in their gene to become something really great. I think I have it, and I think everyone here has the gift, because so far from what I've seen you guys are all pretty tallented, even if your skills aren't fully honed in yet (such as mine). So lets not compare who is an artist, and who isn't. If you love it, want to nurture it (whether or not you want to go professional) and appreciate other art then you are an artist.
We might further make a distinction among "professional" artists according to motive: Those who make art in order to make money, and those who make art for the sake of making art, and are fortunate enough, by chance, to make money at it.
Of course one wouldn't want to participate in a criticism the function of which would be to award brownie points for good intentions. Art that fails to heal or awaken us fails utterly, regardless of what the intention of the artist may have been.
Readers of this thread might also be interested in: "A Useless, Evil Game"
An Exchange between Carson C.T. Collins and David Cohen on Intentionality in the September 2003 issue of Art Critical.
Quote:
We might further make a distinction among "professional" artists according to motive: Those who make art in order to make money, and those who make art for the sake of making art, and are fortunate enough, by chance, to make money at it.
Good one.
And one might further make a distinction between those that make art solely for the purpose of making money and those that among themes they work on choose to prioritize those that sell better some times because let's face it being a starving artist do not feed and clothe kids or pay for classes and new canvases.
To be honest I've turned into a somewhat cynic. I do not at present have the time or the economy to attend a proper art school, I sort of try to learn mainly by myself with some classes now and then. LOL probably would not get admitted either due to less than brilliant talents and skills.
I have to learn and practice all the basics in oil and acrylics painting meaning that even though I paint what I do like and feel like painting, most of my work could be considered learning projects and the canvases and canvas papers pile up. So, yes, I'm cynical enough to know and use the fact that some motifs are easier to sell. And if they sell and give the buyer aesthetic enjoyment then I as an amateur artist have reached an important goal, even if I myself tend to like some of my other work more. The same goes for commissioned work. I can totally understand artists having to do that a bit while they wait to be discovered properly.
Sorry if that offends someone, but I believe one has to a certain degree be a cynic and be commercialized in thought, not as much while painting but at least while trying to get the art exhibitioned and sold.
Some time during the coming week I'm going to exchange some of my earlier work on display in an Alpine center nearby. There are also 2 other landscape artists showing there; one with good skills and lots of detail, and another with skills and talent. I naturally do not want to compete either for the same visitors or on the same skills. So naturally I choose a bit cynically. I know that landscapes probably is of more interest to the visitors than abstracts, so I manly pick those, but I choose some that stand out together with those other artist's works. For example two I've made on hexagonal canvases.
So do the rest of you think that becoming a bit cynical is necessary or something one should try to avoid becoming or being an artist?
Trine
quote="hamlet279"]We might further make a distinction among "professional" artists according to motive: Those who make art in order to make money, and those who make art for the sake of making art, and are fortunate enough, by chance, to make money at it.
Well, I do consider people who do art just to make money artists. It's fine making art just for money, because, let's face it...we all need some kind of income. But I think an artist at heart, who fully appreciates art and goes into work saying, "I love what I do," will enjoy their art so much more and find it more enriching, rather than someone saying, "I love the money I make."
Now this post really is getting interesting. Every new post gives food for thought. I hope many chip in with their opinions because this keep getting more and more interesting.'
And LOL however serious we are as artists wouldn't we all love to be paid lots of money for it hehe and not having to think about financial stuff for a year or so
Trine
_________________
quote="mtv65"]And LOL however serious we are as artists wouldn't we all love to be paid lots of money for it hehe and not having to think about financial stuff for a year or so
Yes, I think we all would. It certainly would make things a heck of a lot easier. I, for one wish that I didn't have to work so hard at becoming an artist...but then, if that were the case I wouldn't appreciate it when I do reach my goals.
For an artist to find material success might be a swell thing, but it's not at all what the artist should be looking for. If you're going to do any important work, this isn't something to think about. Pandering to popular (or critical) taste is no path to greatness.
Those of us who are not congenitally wealthy, posessed of the killer instinct as capitalists, or of rare good fortune in finding patronage, of course, have to work for a living. And most of us would prefer an art-related job (which may or may not be wise). Personally, I prefer to make a clear distinction between the commercial work I do - in which I strive only to please others - and what I consider my "fine" art - in which I only try to please myself.
su.perb [adj]
1.Of unusually high quality; excellent
2. Majestic; imposing:
3. Rich; luxurious
thats wht this act is to me ...
so now can i have it :)
bout the whole money thing, my idea was that. we all have/are limited energy..and we can only 'give' so much, before we become depleated.
and need to be refilled, money, those pieces of paper, that's energy.
how we need to exist is in a flow...
spun [2002] check out imdb about the awards & trivia... most interesting. Glad ya made it to the cybercafe. Got my sms...? lolz
... whoops.. sorry boys.. back to the discussions ;)
what sms?
nah, the cybercafe doesn't
have a cdrom.
and the whole fuckin tamandesa
only had 1 internet cafe.
finally, i had to sneak into my mom's room to get the modem.
heh. thank god i did'nt
wake anybody up.
see what i would do for this.
see!
:)
-chinyew
Post a Comment