5 ms·

I fundamentally disagree with the premise that all art is social Kurt Vonnegut expressed this better than I ever could in a letter to schoolkids, in it he pers

I fundamentally disagree with the premise that all art is social Kurt Vonnegut expressed this better than I ever could in a letter to schoolkids, in it he persuaded them to write a poem then tear it into pieces without showing anyone.. "you'll find that you've already been gloriously rewarded for your poem. You have experienced becoming" Full letter here: https://highexistence.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/10536532984_f44c3736db_o.jpg https://highexistence.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1053653... Further evidence is the 'outsider artists' who never show their art to anyone and are only discovered on their death

andrepd 4y ago
Those kids, and any artist, are if nothing else affected by their environment and the culture they experience, at a fundamental and largely unconscious level. So even the most reclusive artist is in a dialogue: with all the artists of the past several millenia ;)
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  > even the most reclusive artist is in a dialogue: with all the artists of the past several millenia It's not a dialogue if they're dead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue
- pier25 4y ago
  No man is an island, true, but it's quite a leap from that to "art is fundamentally social". And then there's another deep discussion about what is actually art. I would argue if an artist is motivated by social factors to make art, they are not really making art.
  - teucris 4y ago
    Does that mean all commissioned work (which is a ton of the work that hangs in museums) is not really art?
    - pier25 4y ago
      How is this related to what I wrote?
      - davisoneee 4y ago
        I assume the parent is implying that commissioned work is 'socially influenced', and thus by your argument, 'not art'...you are creating a piece because someone else is paying you to, not because that particular piece is just something you want to create.
        pier25 4y ago
        If money is really the fundamental motivation to do something then yeah I would argue that's not art. I'm not saying if you get paid you're not making art. I'm talking about what's driving someone to do something. Like most chefs are paid to cook but are they doing it, fundamentally, to get paid or there's really another fundamental reason driving their passion? If someone is painting or making music for social reasons like being accepted by others, becoming famous, finding their identity in what others think of their painting/music, getting rich, etc, that's not really what art is about. Of course this is only my opinion about a modern conception of art and what an artist is.
  - stemlord 4y ago
    > if an artist is motivated by social factors to make art Theres an entire subset of socializing/communal happenings as art called relational aesthetics tho
    - pier25 4y ago
      Maybe but I would ask what is the fundamental motivation.
teucris 4y ago
Why can’t it be both? Why can’t art that is fundamentally for yourself still be fundamentally social? The entirety of the concepts, techniques, themes, etc. in any art come from exterior influences; the complex web of humanity and our history. That is inherently social to me, even if the end result is never shared.

andrepd 4y ago

Those kids, and any artist, are if nothing else affected by their environment and the culture they experience, at a fundamental and largely unconscious level. So even the most reclusive artist is in a dialogue: with all the artists of the past several millenia ;)

zasdffaa 4y ago
> even the most reclusive artist is in a dialogue: with all the artists of the past several millenia It's not a dialogue if they're dead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue
pier25 4y ago
No man is an island, true, but it's quite a leap from that to "art is fundamentally social". And then there's another deep discussion about what is actually art. I would argue if an artist is motivated by social factors to make art, they are not really making art.
- teucris 4y ago
  Does that mean all commissioned work (which is a ton of the work that hangs in museums) is not really art?
  - pier25 4y ago
    How is this related to what I wrote?
    - davisoneee 4y ago
      I assume the parent is implying that commissioned work is 'socially influenced', and thus by your argument, 'not art'...you are creating a piece because someone else is paying you to, not because that particular piece is just something you want to create.
      - pier25 4y ago
        If money is really the fundamental motivation to do something then yeah I would argue that's not art. I'm not saying if you get paid you're not making art. I'm talking about what's driving someone to do something. Like most chefs are paid to cook but are they doing it, fundamentally, to get paid or there's really another fundamental reason driving their passion? If someone is painting or making music for social reasons like being accepted by others, becoming famous, finding their identity in what others think of their painting/music, getting rich, etc, that's not really what art is about. Of course this is only my opinion about a modern conception of art and what an artist is.
- stemlord 4y ago
  > if an artist is motivated by social factors to make art Theres an entire subset of socializing/communal happenings as art called relational aesthetics tho
  - pier25 4y ago
    Maybe but I would ask what is the fundamental motivation.

teucris 4y ago

Why can’t it be both? Why can’t art that is fundamentally for yourself still be fundamentally social? The entirety of the concepts, techniques, themes, etc. in any art come from exterior influences; the complex web of humanity and our history. That is inherently social to me, even if the end result is never shared.