Is the Artist Selfish?

Yes. I couldn't agree more, Asherman.

The same as with any art. Music, acting, writing, etc.

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so I might be repeating someone.

The question was wether an artist is selfish or not if he abandons his family to pursue his art. How sucsessful he is at it is less important, but I am inclined to say that he is not being selfish. If anybody is unhappy because they are kept from doing what they want, maybe it is the person who keeps him back is the selfish one. It appears to me that such a thing as selfishness needs a mirror to be seen. By this I mean that the beholder (the one accusing someone of selfishness) is never innocent.

Well, usually, the artist (male) made the choice to marry and/or have a family and then decided to skip out on it all to pursue their art so, to me, if your art means more to you than anything else, you know this, you know your passion so don't tie yourself up with anyone and don't tie anyone to you. It IS selfish to marry someone, have children with them and then skip out on them to pursue somehting else or someone else.

Eoe--

Ah, but the True Artistic Temperment cannot be expected to linger in an Uncongenial Atmosphere. How could he know that he despised the Rat Race and Domestic Routine and the Pater Familis Role unless he tried all of these offensive delights?

Doesn't life come with a "no questions return" policy?

Would Be Poets require a lot of forgiveness--generally from women who are too busy with children to do their poetic egos justice.

ExtraMedium, it seems to me that it is not just a matter of level of ability. That's part of what makes up a genius, but the most important part, for this discussion, is the monomaniacal passion/obsession to pursue one's art above all else. It's not really a matter of choice (thus I hesitate to make moral judgements about the genius' behavior). The genius is a slave/addict to his or her art, a rather pitiful condition if you ask me. It's great to have talent; it's miserable to have genius (at least in many cases), especially for those who want to have a "normal" relationship with the genius.

You're killing me, Noddy.
It's all just so tragic.

Abandoning one's family for art is more of a desire. Think about it--would you be happier with your family, constantly suffering from all the possibilities you could do with art, and just letting life and your opportunities pass you by, or would you be happier with art and fulfilling your dreams? One would need ambition and confidence to leave one's family to fulfill one's desires. I don't think it's selfish; it's whether or not one chooses to make one's life purposeful or not. That means whether one thinks it is more meaningful to be with one's family or fulfilling one's desires.

JLN,

I agree. Genius, even being an ultra-high achiever, can be a curse.

Even seemingly more level-headed scientific geniuses such as Einstein seemed to have trouble with personal relationships.

One biography of Einstein's I read claimed he "left behind a string of broken hearts" and always felt that his romantic relationships were an area of semi-failure in his life.

Hmmm...interesting....I wonder if any "genius" in history has been able to maintain a relativey happy & stable family life?

Can anyone think of a genius who also had a happy family life?

johann sebastian bach? Not too many can do what he did and i'm not talking about the music!

What did he do?

I'm wondering: Are there any known examples of WOMEN artists who have behaved in ways as outrageous, say, as Picasso? For their art, of course! :wink:

[i have not read the entire thread here, so i hope this is not overly repetitive]

First, an artist is simply a person like any other, with all the characteristics of a human being, who has chosen to express their relationship with 'being' in a public manner using their skill in emotional communication as the 'medium'.

It is necessary to separate the person from the 'art', and their relationship with their fellow human beings, with their relationship to all humanity.

Art is a highly demanding pursuit, requiring a degree of honesty, and dedication that is not expected, or common in most other disciplines.
Frequently, is seems, the demands of the 'art', exhaust the entire 'emotional' capacity of the artist, rendering them unable to maintain even the most simple of emotional relationships with others.

This is a hazard of the profession, and while it does not justify the frequently poor social adaptation of these individuals, it does serve to frame the need to sever the artist's behaviour, from the artist's contribution to human culture through the art they have produced.

It is fair to disdain the social errors of the artist, but not to connect those human flaws to the quality or importance of the 'work'!

Art is part of culture and there are people who admire it. Society wouldn't be the same without art, even if it means artists are socially flawed.

i agree, and disagree; art "IS" culture, and culture "IS" art; and while some artists exhibit social 'warts', many fit seamlessly into the fabric along side other professionals.

I would be tempted to think that those artists who expend their emotional resources on their work, and allow their relationships to fail, are less talented than those who realize the relationship of art to life, and feed off the interplay of both.

I think that some artists, in order to reach their full artitistic potential, need to be freed from the burden of caring for a family. They need to have nothing disturbing them and nobdody around to bother them. Other artists however, may need other people for inspiration, support, etc. etc.

BoGoWo, I would say that art is cultural and culture is artifact.
CarbonSystem, as I recall Nietzsche believed that philosophers should not marry. I think Schopenhauer would have agreed. But many artists have been happily married, Richard Diebenkorn and Milton Avery come immediately to mind.

His sister said about one of my favourite artists
Gustav Klimt

"Like all artists, he also needed a lot of love and
above all consideration. After all, he was not naturally gregarious, but a loner, and it therefore had to be the duty of his brothers and sisters to eliminate all the little things in his daily life that were inconvenient.
Every night he used to join us, eat his meal with
hardly a word then go to bed early. We understood
his silent comings and goings. Once he had gathered strength, he would plunge into his work with such vehemence that we often thought the flames of his genius might consume him alive...."
Gustav Klimt Eros and Ethos Alessandra Comini

artists are simply people; art is part of the human condition, and everyone is an artist to a degree, in some way.
The use of the 'special status' of being an artist (arteest!) to justify being a poor human being is nonsense; but even so, it does not, or should not, reflect on the art.

I agree that everyone is an artist "to some degree".....and that is good.

However, it would be a happier and better world if people were able to have the luxury of being better matched and attuned to their eventual vocations.....