4 ms·

Okay, well look, we have to step back and admit that what makes art valuable is a subjective question. If I understand correctly, your belief is that the art o

Okay, well look, we have to step back and admit that what makes art valuable is a subjective question. If I understand correctly, your belief is that the art of 'highest value' is created in a vacuum from the approval of others. That's okay. However, for myself, and usually for most others, the most valuable art is simply that which brings them the greatest joy. When it comes to creating art, I receive the greatest joy when I'm also giving others joy. I'm much better able to give others joy when I consider their tastes. So I take my own (actually quite extreme) desire for experimentation, my own sense of aesthetics, and find where that overlaps with people's tastes. It's a hybridization. Not top-down, or bottom-up. My argument is that most people, being essentially prosocial, gain the most fulfilment when they incorporate the tastes of others. And sometimes, our value system can make us feel less fulfilled. In this case, I believe that the value system of 'ignoring the approval of others' makes most people feel less fulfilled. Simply put, it's like sex: the best sex is simultaneously self-focused and other-focused. I view art exactly the same.

exodust 4y ago
Talking about "what is art" gets foggy quickly! One more post from me. The original point about isolation is simple. It can be good for the creative process. That's not a controversial idea. Writers often get away, painters hide out in their studios. It doesn't mean they don't routinely draw inspiration from their social worlds. By tapping into your own humanity, you tap into the joy of others. Your tastes will likely be shared by others. So in satisfying your own taste, you will be satisfying others. This can all be done in complete social isolation! > I consider their tastes Okay cool, but generally artists don't know the taste of their audience, other than they like art. That's why artists get nervous showing their work, because you're baring soul. The tastes and joy in others isn't relevant for the creative process that aligns with raw "truth-telling" artistic pursuits. Pleasing others is a nice secondary consequence of whatever you created, but when pleasing others is a key driver of the creative process, you might be limiting your work.

exodust 4y ago

Talking about "what is art" gets foggy quickly! One more post from me. The original point about isolation is simple. It can be good for the creative process. That's not a controversial idea. Writers often get away, painters hide out in their studios. It doesn't mean they don't routinely draw inspiration from their social worlds. By tapping into your own humanity, you tap into the joy of others. Your tastes will likely be shared by others. So in satisfying your own taste, you will be satisfying others. This can all be done in complete social isolation! > I consider their tastes Okay cool, but generally artists don't know the taste of their audience, other than they like art. That's why artists get nervous showing their work, because you're baring soul. The tastes and joy in others isn't relevant for the creative process that aligns with raw "truth-telling" artistic pursuits. Pleasing others is a nice secondary consequence of whatever you created, but when pleasing others is a key driver of the creative process, you might be limiting your work.