5 ms·

Most comments seems positive here, nice. I'm a bit less enthusiastic. A twenty-so young boy has no lesson to teach. He can't be an artist because artists are ei

by gbog 11y ago

Most comments seems positive here, nice. I'm a bit less enthusiastic. A twenty-so young boy has no lesson to teach. He can't be an artist because artists are either over fifty or dead, no matter how many times he'll repeat the mantra. One does not choose art among other professional activities: a very few men or women are chosen to become artists and they will be no matter what else they try to do. Also being an artist is a curse. In just finished reading the trial by Kafka for the fourth time: it must have been extremely painful and hard to write such a deep novel. I wouldn't wish having this curse even on my worst enemy. Normal people far very much being an "artist" and they are right, as bring one means having the most miserable life, no sane relationships with other people, and if success is there you get paranoia. Even worse is a young guy who knows nothing about that and says "me too! I want to be an Artist!". Just like those fools willing to become soldiers in 1914...

sombremesa 11y ago
I think your message is steeped in negativity and what little of value there is is lost. Suppose you had the most important message in the world - we would all still downvote you when you put it like that. Now suppose that OP has the least meaningful message in the world - however, it is steeped in positivity. If nothing else, let this be a lesson in how much your attitude matters.
- gbog 11y ago
  So something useless and positive wins over something useful but negative? You'd kept slaves in slavery with this powerful reasoning.
- mari_says 11y ago
  The problem is that art is what a system of galleries and museums establishes as art work. How unfair or not this is I might agree. But artist is not a condition that you can claim. I agree that there is a bit of arrogance, which is a psicological condition that is very tipical in artists, so it should be no problem. The problem is that in this case this work is not only outside the institution but also outside the discourse of art. I'd like to know what message you read here. As someone that has been tought to look at works of art since I have memory I tell you that the only message implied in these pieces is the inner world of the author. I respect it but art is a metadiscourse, art is always about art, or at least provides a means to refer to art history. It can be about literature, take a look at Lovecraft or Allan Moore. Those are artists. The technique is good, even impressive but dificultness is not needed in art. Museums would be filled of ships constructed inside bottles and they are not. So I understand this negativity because it's not only arrogant to claim to be an artist at the age of 20, but to claim it without having been interested yourself in art history much. Art is not about artists, that is some romantic stuff we've been told from 1800 and stoped working 50 years later, until the new media started emphasizing in personalities so insistently. So of course attitude is really important, but I think the one showing the wrong attitude here is the one claiming to be artist. There is nothing wrong in not being an artist.
ryan-allen 11y ago
I don't know why this comment is being downvoted, do we downvote on differences of sentiment now on HN?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- smtddr 11y ago
  >>A twenty-so young boy has no lesson to teach. That indefensible statement alone is enough reason for a downvote, imho.
  - gbog 11y ago
    It seems to me very defensible that "how I became an artist" cannot be taught by someone who has only a few years behind. "Becoming an artist", for real artists, is a life-long achievement, it takes a lot of struggles, travels (inside and outside), it requires knowing a lot, reading a lot, et cetera. "How I became an artist" from a 20-so is a absurd, risible, as "how to learn Python in 20 mn" confer: http://norvig.com/21-days.html http://norvig.com/21-days.html (Also, you truncated my post, "How to write blog posts" would be perfectly ok from a 20-so, for that matter.)
    - ryan-allen 11y ago
      My thoughts are that both views are valid. I don't think it'd be difficult to look back and discover that some of the great artists were tortured with what they did. My somewhat cynical view is that anything significant requires great sacrifice and no matter what positive spin you put on it, few great artists got there with an abound of positive emotions. Getting good sucks. It sucks, a lot. An anecdote I remember reading of the lives of famous musicians: "[A fan] once came up to Fritz Kreisler after one of his concerts and said to him, “I’d give my life to play as beautifully as you do.” To which Kreisler replied, “I did.” Positive spin might feel nice to read in a blog post, but I don't think it reflect the reality of the endeavor. Also I agree with you, just replying here for, whatever.
lectrick 11y ago
> In just finished reading the trial by Kafka for the fourth time Well, if you weren't bitter and depressed enough after the 1st time, having 4 readings under your belt would go a ways towards explaining the nihilist pessimistic emptiness of your post. When you're done staring into the abyss, the actual meaning that we all have the opportunity to elect to participate in (and which young people still rightfully believe in, stop trying to extinguish it) will still be waiting.

by gbog 11y ago

sombremesa 11y ago

I think your message is steeped in negativity and what little of value there is is lost. Suppose you had the most important message in the world - we would all still downvote you when you put it like that. Now suppose that OP has the least meaningful message in the world - however, it is steeped in positivity. If nothing else, let this be a lesson in how much your attitude matters.

gbog 11y ago
So something useless and positive wins over something useful but negative? You'd kept slaves in slavery with this powerful reasoning.
mari_says 11y ago
The problem is that art is what a system of galleries and museums establishes as art work. How unfair or not this is I might agree. But artist is not a condition that you can claim. I agree that there is a bit of arrogance, which is a psicological condition that is very tipical in artists, so it should be no problem. The problem is that in this case this work is not only outside the institution but also outside the discourse of art. I'd like to know what message you read here. As someone that has been tought to look at works of art since I have memory I tell you that the only message implied in these pieces is the inner world of the author. I respect it but art is a metadiscourse, art is always about art, or at least provides a means to refer to art history. It can be about literature, take a look at Lovecraft or Allan Moore. Those are artists. The technique is good, even impressive but dificultness is not needed in art. Museums would be filled of ships constructed inside bottles and they are not. So I understand this negativity because it's not only arrogant to claim to be an artist at the age of 20, but to claim it without having been interested yourself in art history much. Art is not about artists, that is some romantic stuff we've been told from 1800 and stoped working 50 years later, until the new media started emphasizing in personalities so insistently. So of course attitude is really important, but I think the one showing the wrong attitude here is the one claiming to be artist. There is nothing wrong in not being an artist.

ryan-allen 11y ago

I don't know why this comment is being downvoted, do we downvote on differences of sentiment now on HN?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
smtddr 11y ago
>>A twenty-so young boy has no lesson to teach. That indefensible statement alone is enough reason for a downvote, imho.
- gbog 11y ago
  It seems to me very defensible that "how I became an artist" cannot be taught by someone who has only a few years behind. "Becoming an artist", for real artists, is a life-long achievement, it takes a lot of struggles, travels (inside and outside), it requires knowing a lot, reading a lot, et cetera. "How I became an artist" from a 20-so is a absurd, risible, as "how to learn Python in 20 mn" confer: http://norvig.com/21-days.html http://norvig.com/21-days.html (Also, you truncated my post, "How to write blog posts" would be perfectly ok from a 20-so, for that matter.)
  - ryan-allen 11y ago
    My thoughts are that both views are valid. I don't think it'd be difficult to look back and discover that some of the great artists were tortured with what they did. My somewhat cynical view is that anything significant requires great sacrifice and no matter what positive spin you put on it, few great artists got there with an abound of positive emotions. Getting good sucks. It sucks, a lot. An anecdote I remember reading of the lives of famous musicians: "[A fan] once came up to Fritz Kreisler after one of his concerts and said to him, “I’d give my life to play as beautifully as you do.” To which Kreisler replied, “I did.” Positive spin might feel nice to read in a blog post, but I don't think it reflect the reality of the endeavor. Also I agree with you, just replying here for, whatever.

lectrick 11y ago

> In just finished reading the trial by Kafka for the fourth time Well, if you weren't bitter and depressed enough after the 1st time, having 4 readings under your belt would go a ways towards explaining the nihilist pessimistic emptiness of your post. When you're done staring into the abyss, the actual meaning that we all have the opportunity to elect to participate in (and which young people still rightfully believe in, stop trying to extinguish it) will still be waiting.