Gaia Community

Re: Is the Act of Creation inherently "Artistic"?

DG said Mar 25, 2006, 6:05 PM:

I’m unlikely to do justice to your post, Fredrick, but I must answer your question with a resounding “yes.”

Although granted, to my mind, your sandwich also qualifies as art in some contexts.

I see all acts of creativity as not only artistic, but vital. Anytime we’re in the act of making, even when it’s not going so well or the result isn’t quite what we wanted, we’re actively choosing to eschew the poisons of human life; boredom, numbing out through substances, needless interpersonal drama, despair. Anytime a person takes the stuff of his or her life and channels it into something that’s never existed before, I see it as art – whether you eat, wear, drive, sit on, or hang the result in a museum.

Granted, there are distinctions, and I haven’t been able to define these satisfactorily yet. Picasso, after all, may have more to do with Thor Heyerdahl than Craftster.org. There is art that travels to places no one knew existed, and shifts perceptions, and remains relevant over generations. Such art deserves elevation, and yet elevating any art troubles me. That tends to create barriers to entry, as in, “I’ll never try painting, because I’ll never do it as well as Cezanne.”

There’s my conundrum: I want to exalt all creativity, and I still want to rarify the artists who inspire me.

Show Replies

Re: Is the Act of Creation inherently "Artistic"?

Rob said Mar 26, 2006, 11:18 PM:

Creativity is something coming from nothing. ‘Artsy’, to me, implies that something was more intentional on behalf of the individual.
Where there is certainty, there is no room for creativity….Creativity is when something comes from nothing(Which is why I’d sooner say that to be artistic one must allow creativity to happen through him rather than by him).

Building a sandwich…is that really creation? or is it simply construction? bringing actuality to an idea which is already fully conceptualized…
I mean, in one context creation and construction are synonymous…but…

maybe it’s more like a thermometer than a coin…not artistic vs. not-artistic, but rather, simply degrees of artistic-ness….where there might be a degree of artfulness in sandwich making, but the artfulness is marked more by the prescence of the artist ‘in the Now’ as he does his art…by the degree of openness to uncertainty as one acts as creativity’s vessel.

-Rob

Re: Is the Act of Creation inherently "Artistic"?

theQuietMan [no longer around] said Mar 27, 2006, 6:59 PM:

I wonder if whether a work is artistic or not depends on how it is perceived. Art seems to have a life of its own after it leaves its creator's hands. I think a creator will usually see it as artistic, but do others? I think of art and how impressionism was not always looked on as artistic by some critics, but after time, its acceptance grew and its artistic value grew. However, on the other hand, I think of literature vis-a-vis “popular” writings, say paperback romances. If we just look at numbers of individuals who think highly of the art, does it still make it artistic? Is it a matter of how the work stands over time? Then again, I have made some sandwiches I felt were a work of art, and no one else ever saw them.

Re: Is the Act of Creation inherently "Artistic"?

DG said Mar 28, 2006, 4:43 AM:

Steve, you’ve hit on an important bit – the idea of “whose perception turns something into art?”

Perhaps money is a key element here. If I sell my work to make a living, then I am more dependent on other people defining it as “art” and therefore worthy of purchase. If I create for my own pleasure, then I can assign the result any definition I like.

I met a professional ceramicist recently. She was quite frustrated over the whole “art vs. craft” debate, because she felt that “art” is worth more money and adulation in the “market.” (“Market” being a term for “buying public.”)

In fact, she had assigned a lot of power to this “market” to decide what could be considered art and what was “mere craft.” And she felt rather helpless, because she didn’t feel she could influence the “market” to see her work as “art.”

I see where she was coming from – she needed to sell work to make a living. But I felt sad for her, because that perception seemed to take away her joy in her work.

Art's Frame of Reference

Fredrick said Apr 3, 2006, 1:07 AM:

To bring in the parameter of the 'market' is an entirely different issue.
Many artists' works were value-less until after their death.
Contemporary artists have the augmentation of the international press, which was not around for Michelangelo or even van Gogh.I was quite intrigued by the way the Guggenheim had patroned artists to create works, and if they did not sell, then the Guggenheim owned all of the works. Well, since the Guggenheim also ‘assisted’ the art critics to determine tastes, it would seem that most artists in their premiere would sell little to nothing, and the Guggenheim would acquire significant collections of ‘early work’. Then, just a show or two later, they were considered amazing talents, and the earlier works [‘purchased’ for pennies] were now worth millions… I think that it is more important to focus upon the concept of self-appreciation.Are you creating works to sell, or to express a part of your soul?If you want to sell, then mass produce things for hotels by the thousands. An artist friend of mine has, what I think of as three distinct art forms:1) gallery art;2) public art; and3) community art.His gallery art sells for thousands, and is in the collections of a number of museums. But, he only sells about 1-4 painting per year. So, he has #2: Public Art. This is where he boils down big art concepts to something that he can readily sell to the public art agencies. Every year, he gets dozens of public art commissions; They are kitschy, gaudy and if he was not a friend of mine… well, I wouldn’t think much of them. But, as I do know him, I understand his process. He is trying to create art that Joe Schmo can relate to. [Remember Joe Schmo was taught that by gluing some macaroni on a plate that he was creating art. Especially if he then tossed some green glitter all over it.] Lastly, is his community art works. There are soley for himself, well, actually they are for the community in which we live; but he has no ‘client’ so he does whatever he wants. They are resonant works, full of character, challenging politics and establishment,… I LOVE THEM! But, without the first two, he could not afford to spend a thousand bucks on little plaster buddhas that he randomly inserts into nooks and crannies around town, or creating public gardens spaces in the midst of parking lots during the middle of the night…

We all question ourselves. Heck, I refused to consider myself an artist until a year ago when my friends pretty much hammered it into me that I was due to the amount of $%^&* that I was creating around town physically and theoretically. Did Michelangelo have periods of doubt as he laid on his back for fifteen years painting the Sistine Chapel on scaffolding? Most certainly! He had days of doubt, anger, indigestion, sorrow, you name it. [Don't worry, I have no delusions, I know that I am no Michaelangelo…]

Perhaps we need more time to be thoughtful.If we were painting a room for fifteen years, then our boss would certainly fire us.But, we do not build chapels over 500 years, we build them in three months and they fall apart just after the seven-year factory warranties go out of effect. Rob, Steve, DG,…We all create art, if we are being true to ourselves.

I just hope that along with creating work personally, that we will take a moment to talk to the Joe Schmo’s around us and educate them a bit more, so that Joe himself could be more thoughtful in his daily acts of creation. Joe might become the next Marcel Duchamp or Jean-Michel Basquiat.

Ciao,
Fredrick