Scott ([info]sprainedsoul) wrote,
@ 2003-04-04 20:44:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
...
Your dissonant voice on my radio, your undernourished and maladroit body on my stage, your ineffectual and uninspired peices of pretense in my field of view. It's better than destruction and apathy, but...What are you going to do when all art is signed anonymously?

What are you going to do when you can't take credit for your art? Your oft-shattered ego won't get the shot in the arm it needs when your signature doesn't exist anymore and the steely truth of art for art's sake bares down on you like an unpayable debt. Sounds and images will only exist as fundamental expressions of the soul and not as a source of rent payment. Once it's all anonymous, bad art will die and we'll be able to consider all work based on it's ability to produce emotion from those exposed to it or any other merits not weighed down with vogue preconceptions. Your Broadway dreams will drop when you can't see your name in lights and the art school drop outs will be able to wash your dishes and wait on your tables knowing that what they have to say is just as exposed as your haut couture mediocrity.

Your ego won't feed you art so your art shouldn't feed your ego.

(9 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]radd
2003-04-05 06:59 am UTC (link)
"What are you going to do when you can't take credit for your art? Your oft-shattered ego won't get the shot in the arm it needs when your signature doesn't exist anymore and the steely truth of art for art's sake bares down on you like an unpayable debt."

Is it so wrong to take pride in one's work?

I do agree with you, to an extent. When images and music are created simply to further one's ego. When one isn't drawing what they want to draw, but what they percieve that others want to see from them. Writing the music others will praise them for, instead of the music that they themselves want to hear.

Of course, even this is an expression of one's soul, is it not?

"Sounds and images will only exist as fundamental expressions of the soul and not as a source of rent payment."

Why can't art be both?

I create art for myself. For the sake of doing it. I would like to find a job that lets me draw for a living. Until that time paying rent, bills, debts, and whatnot stands in the way of my art. If I have no time to draw, because I work all day, then pass out exhausted when I get home...where does all that freedom to create art 'for the sake of art' go?

Something to consider;

The stereotype of the starving artist exists for a reason. I've created most of my art during the periods of time when I was unemployed, and done far less artwork when I had a steady job for the reasons I've already given.

Is it so bad to want to creat art because it's something you love to do, yet still be able to eat? Go see a doctor when you're sick or injured? Buy art supplies? Afford a roof over your head?

I think the argument that artists should just create art and be content with that alone misses the point of the struggle most artists face. At the same time, I agree, when do you cross the line? When are you creating art merely to make a buck or to inflate your own ego? No longer creating art, but just churning out what sells or brings in the most praise?

I don't think the answers are all that simple. When I say I agree, it's because the art that isn't driven entirely by a need for wealth, the music that isn't written purely to be popular, is what is more likely to appeal to me. But again, aren't those an expression of one's soul just as much? Though an expression some might not take to as well?

Something to think about.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re:
[info]sprainedsoul
2003-04-05 07:12 am UTC (link)
If you want to have pride in your work, go ahead but the chance of your work suffering for that pride is very much real.

And paying the rent is a struggle as any other,my point is that bad art will cease when no money or person is attached to it.

That's the idea of signing all art anonymously, nothing to be gained from it and no ego to weigh it down.

The argument is not weither bad art is an expression or not, it's weither it will survive when it's not forced upon us and good art has just as much a shot of getting to us.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]radd
2003-04-05 08:22 am UTC (link)
There are many things that one's art could suffer from. Pride is one thing, yes.

Fear is another. Fear that one isn't good enough to create, they second guess themselves, don't push themselves as far as they could, or ultimately stop creating altogether.

Greed is another. When an artists stops creating work with any personal meaning. When they stop creating the music they want to hear, or the images that they want to see, in favour of what the media will be able to sell to the people.

Poverty is another. When an artist cannot afford the equipment they need to create. When they're to hungry to concentrate on the image they're trying to put to paper or the song they're trying to compose.

Narrow-mindedness is another. When an artist creates work that they like, paints from the heart. Tells the stories they like to tell...but they limit themselves to that. They don't experiment or branch out to see what else the world has to offer.

If you look and see though, good art is all around us. Not every song on the radio is churned out by some soulless corporate drones, picked for their looks and some mediocrum of talent.

Not every cartoon or comic is done by someone who doesn't care what they draw as long as it brings them another dollar.

Not every painting is done by someone who paints solely to gain the highest praise for the curators and critics.

Not every movie is made simply to make millions at the box office.

The money and recognition that good artwork gets allows the artists that created those to create more great works.

Now, if your argument was that we'd see more artwork if artists weren't bound by the need for things like rent and food money, or the acclaim that brings in more money to keep them out of the cold, well...I'm not certain if that would work, but I'd certainly like to see it tried.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re:
[info]sprainedsoul
2003-04-05 08:27 am UTC (link)
You're missing the point entirely, when all art is signed anonymously, all that is bad will die on it's own. If it's mediocre, it creates nothing but indifference and people move on to the next thing. Money and recognition shouldn't drive you to make more art, thus the idea of art for art's sake.

If you get paid to do work, that's fine, that's not what I'm argueing, I'm merely proposing the possibilities of art signed anonymously.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]kristenq
2003-04-05 08:38 am UTC (link)
Or not signed at all. On a sort of unrelated note, some people have the worst [AND LARGEST] .sig's...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jenwolf
2003-04-05 08:54 am UTC (link)
Bad art will never go away, even if it is all anonymously created. "Bad" and "Art" are both very subjective terms. I'm sure any one of us has at one point gone into a gallery or listened to a band, and said "I can do better than that. Why do they get the recognition?" We may think the art is bad. Other people may think it is genious. Still others wouldn't classify it as art at all.

It's a fine idea, on paper. It just wouldn't work in real life.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re:
[info]sprainedsoul
2003-04-05 09:38 am UTC (link)
If you call something art, then it must be art then? Of course it's subjective, but weak art won't hold up without sensationalism, or bullshit "Worhallism".

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]andrewwyld
2003-04-05 02:44 pm UTC (link)
I see your point ... I do hate the cult of personality that surrounds art.  A friend of mine once pointed out that much Dali was done by assistants (and so the work was devalued), but I didn't like it because it was Dali -- I liked it because I liked it.

Art should be judged on merit, not its producer, or fashion, or association with the great, or because it is an investment.

But the sig is only bad because art, for the people who care about sigs, is about money, status and power, and not about art at all.  Rich patrons like the Saatchi brothers will still buy art which elevates their public profile, and good art will remain in the shade.  An artist might never even benefit directly from such patronage -- might, worse yet, never be taken seriously because of people who think that all they do is produce bullshit and make money, when they might have made very little of either.

Under these circumstances, I think I can understand why someone might cling to a signature.

(Reply to this)


[info]plip
2003-04-06 12:00 am UTC (link)
The guy selling me this painting told me it was inspired by a well known american artist but it wasn't a copy... I don't care... I liked it... I can't even read the signature!

(Reply to this)

(9 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…