What is the purpose of Art?

I was speaking only for myself, and I have heard of dread of blank canvas, the need to break the white, and so on. I didn't think you were flippant, MsOlga. But I am ontologically keen faced with a fresh new canvas.

0 Replies

osso

It's not the fresh canvas .... It's about half-way through! Decisions, decisions, disatisfaction, doubt! Very confronting. My theory is that you could work on one canvas forever, changing it every day, in the quest for resolution.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Osso, regarding the angst of painting, the existentialist therapist, Rollo May, contends that angst (for which there is no real translation in english: "threat"--which combines both anguish and dread--is probably closer than the weaker "anxiety") makes much of the concept of ontological guilt, in contrast to moral guilt (manifested in anxiety). As I recall, his "ontological guilt" pertains to the strength and quality of our sense of being. Are we fulfilling ourselves, our existence, or have we cheated ourselves, perhaps wasted our lives in not exploiting our potential? Is it possible that we take painting so seriously, and feel some angst when we confront a new canvas, because it speaks to our success or failure in fulfilling our potentiality?

Hmmmm ... interesting JLN. I'll think about that.

0 Replies

Perhaps it's because every time you start a new one you have to confront wat many people have likely told you: you are wasting your time, in the most self-indulgent and effete sort of way. I suspect most artists in western (and perhaps other) societies hear a great deal of this. If you're not great, the thinking goes, why bother?

Dunno if it's akin to the fear that goes with breaking new ground as an actor -- which is more about getting past the various mores and insecurities that shape our social character.

0 Replies

Msloga, I have a bunch of nearly "completed" paintings that are awaiting attention. After my inititial enthusiasm, I find a plateau in which I pick and change endlessly. I even have "finished" paintings which I make changes to, even with the frame on. It's very difficult to REMAIN satisfied with a painting.

0 Replies

Maybe you need to put them in other people's hands and be done with them.

0 Replies

Msloga, I've been fortunate in that I've always been encouraged (except in grammar school), not discouraged in everything I do. If I have a fear (other than ontological angst) it's that I can't live up to expectations. But I don't think that's much of a problem. People don't really expect too much from me. They better not.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

It's very difficult to REMAIN satisfied with a painting.

Yes. Almost impossible. Strange, isn't it?

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

Perhaps it's because every time you start a new one you have to confront wat many people have likely told you: you are wasting your time, in the most self-indulgent and effete sort of way. I suspect most artists in western (and perhaps other) societies hear a great deal of this. If you're not great, the thinking goes, why bother?

Yes, patiodog, a lot has to do with this. Sometimes I think it would have been so liberating to NOT have studied Art! It can make one so self conscious & critical. I would love to be able to return to the sheer pleasure of childhood drawing & painting.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Speaking of Van Gogh, there was a special showing of his paintings at the art museum in Los Angeles several years ago, and my wife and I flew down to see them. I'm amazed at how the people who lived during Van Gogh's life missed his genius.

Having read "Lust for Life," I'm now reading "Depths of Glory" another biographical novel by Irving Stone written 50 years after "Lust." "Depths of Glory" is about Camille Pizarro and the artists of the Impressionist and Post-Impressionist period in Paris. It wasn't just Van Gogh who was neglected, it was virtually all of them; Manet, Monet, Renoir, Seurat, Gauguin, and Cezanne, especially Cezanne. None of them could get in galleries, and the annual national exhibition almost consistently rejected them.

Some of them came from wealthy families, and though Pizarro's family gave him some money, it wasn't to support his artistic ambition; both his parents deplored his artistic bent. Art to them, and most people of the time, was a way to make money, and if your paintings didn't sell, you were a failure.

0 Replies

coluber, I hope the parents of today are more encouraging of their children in the 'arts,' even if they don't make a living from it. I believe art is part and parcel of the individual, and to deny that is to take away part of their true selves.

0 Replies

C.I., very well put..."...to take away part of their true selves."

0 Replies

to address the original question I think the purpose of art is to please the final user and the artist it is to do whatever the audence wants like music it is for the fans and the money but well anyway it is for pleasure and diverisity.

0 Replies

there is not a distinct purpose for art
Art is an enigma itself. Full of comparisons and contrasts. If there was a true purpose for art would we still feel the same about it? If Monets purpose was to make every painting resemble Dali's then there wouldnt be two great diverse artists.All art would be the same how boring! So some may do it for the money,fame or even pleasure but each individual has a purpose for doing so and no one can catergorize everyones oppinion. Art is percieved different by the viewer,buyer and the maker leave it at that.

0 Replies

What is the purpose of Art?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know