4 ms·

I reslly appreciated your comment but here is some food for thought. If art is about mimicking the real world, some will be much better than others and there w

by s986s 11y ago

I reslly appreciated your comment but here is some food for thought. If art is about mimicking the real world, some will be much better than others and there will be only one best If art is about capturing the perfect moment to inspire emotion, one could argue there are a thousand ways to do it. If you believe artists should all speak in the same voice, i would say many would lose interest. If you allow artists to speak in their own voice, the cream will rise to the top. Naturally, the most sellable and marketable products will be given the limelight (pop art as an example) and omce those go out of fassion, a new fad will arise As much as i agree that many modern peices look like they are pictures mixed with bleach, i dont think that is a bad thing. We have a free art market today while in the old world only the best were commissioned.

veddox 11y ago
I don't think that that is what he was trying to say. Art is not about "mimicking" the real world, neither should every artist speak with the same voice - far from it! However, an artist that only talks about his own personal experience will not make art that anybody else wants to see. There has to be some sort of connection to the lives of other people around him, otherwise his art is meaningless to all but himself. And meaningless art is a contradiction in terms. Art should be an interpretation of the real world that its audience can somehow relate to. Artists aren't all that special as people, but they can be special in that they can get other people to think about the world around them in a new way. Of course, all interpretations factor in the view point of the author/artist, and that's OK - else we really would have a whole bunch of artists producing identical stuff, and who wants that? The important thing is that somehow, the audience has to be involved in the work of art. And by the way: what's so bad about some artists being better than others? Isn't that the way it's supposed to be? After all, nobody would claim all programmers are identical in skill, so why should all artists be?
- s986s 11y ago
  There is nothing wrong for one artist to have a better hand than another. I would also argue there is nothing wrong with an artist speaking from their own perspective instead of one that is forced upon them. "Should" is a very naughty word. Our government "should not" servey us, but they "should" in order to keep us safe. Artists "should not" create selfish peices but they "should" speak in their own voice. There was a recent exhibit i found particularly interesting where the artist used real dead bodies. This was interesting because he was legally alowed to and others would pay to go see it. The art itself is not appealing but it applies to the fourth wall. Our world today is filled with so many loopholes and rediculous businesses that an art peice like this reflects on it. If the artist did not speak selfishly, these kind of rediculous loopholes may never be exposed. But in the same notion, would should look at our own lives and recognize art is not a unique case, obvious and loud but far less damaging in many regards

by s986s 11y ago

veddox 11y ago

I don't think that that is what he was trying to say. Art is not about "mimicking" the real world, neither should every artist speak with the same voice - far from it! However, an artist that only talks about his own personal experience will not make art that anybody else wants to see. There has to be some sort of connection to the lives of other people around him, otherwise his art is meaningless to all but himself. And meaningless art is a contradiction in terms. Art should be an interpretation of the real world that its audience can somehow relate to. Artists aren't all that special as people, but they can be special in that they can get other people to think about the world around them in a new way. Of course, all interpretations factor in the view point of the author/artist, and that's OK - else we really would have a whole bunch of artists producing identical stuff, and who wants that? The important thing is that somehow, the audience has to be involved in the work of art. And by the way: what's so bad about some artists being better than others? Isn't that the way it's supposed to be? After all, nobody would claim all programmers are identical in skill, so why should all artists be?

s986s 11y ago
There is nothing wrong for one artist to have a better hand than another. I would also argue there is nothing wrong with an artist speaking from their own perspective instead of one that is forced upon them. "Should" is a very naughty word. Our government "should not" servey us, but they "should" in order to keep us safe. Artists "should not" create selfish peices but they "should" speak in their own voice. There was a recent exhibit i found particularly interesting where the artist used real dead bodies. This was interesting because he was legally alowed to and others would pay to go see it. The art itself is not appealing but it applies to the fourth wall. Our world today is filled with so many loopholes and rediculous businesses that an art peice like this reflects on it. If the artist did not speak selfishly, these kind of rediculous loopholes may never be exposed. But in the same notion, would should look at our own lives and recognize art is not a unique case, obvious and loud but far less damaging in many regards