Artist's role

colorific<

I think of the artist more as "visionary" than any of the things you mentioned. S/he may certainly be influenced by one or more of these things. In the finished work, however, it is the artist's vision which wins the prize.

Work will tell.

satt<

I agree with you here. Without work, no art can ever be produced because it requires a steady paying public -- and implicit publicity -- for a work to be judged as art. One may have many showings of his hard work, but if s/he hasn't worked hard enough, no one will buy.

A painting that stays in a closet can never be art until somebody sees and appreciates it.

Making art is a process, if no one ever sees the painting it's still art, just art that hasn't been seen.

Hello colorific,

I'm trying something using all 3 of your templates, we'll see if we can strech it. Peter Greeaway would be one and Buzz Laudman another of these astute visionaries,who have paved the road,in which relam I hope to tread.

I meant 4 there.

Reporter- My formal education is limited thus my ability to convey what if feel is limited; however, I have been lucky in being able to participate because of my own personal desire, the encouragement of my mother, and my natural love of all art. My reporting would be on the side of I accept almost everything whether I like it or not as who am I to criticize.

I am aware of the many fancy artsy fartsy euphemisms of art historian I resist or at least try to resist type of conversation and hope that I never resort to that type of thing. For example being from Indiana and adopting an upper East Side NYC way of talking. I can report that there are times when the neurons fire and I am subsumed by a piece a work of art (those are my favorite times and time stands still for me). The only art historian that ever made any since to me was the curator of Asian Art at a lecture at the Chicago Institute saying while showing a slide of Chou Dynasty celadon, "this vase is so beautiful I could eat it." Sometimes I feel like seeing is not enough.

I do think that ancient art is most representative of the elite but just as today they were the ones who could afford it.

Provocateur - Fear no art is my opinion. I adopted this opinion on a trip to the Hirshorn Museum of Modern Art in Washington, D.C. with three kids, age seven-twelve. To my delight they found delight in everything they saw. Each gallery was a new adventure for them and they were so excited about the color and shapes I had to face the fact that my life experiences had influenced me and that their open minds could appreciate things I probably couldn't even see. None of them even uttered the phrase my child could do that.

Commentator - Art is my life these days and I love talking about it and with others who love art. But that can be difficult at times to find folks that are willing to talk art since so many people are afraid of art. In my opinion abstract, modernist, abstract expressionism, and minimalism - what ever art is it is representative of our society as all art has always been we do not get to pick. My opinion, is that if you look at a piece and see nothing or a mess then maybe that is where our society is. Plain and simple there has never been a time in history when artists did not reflect the society they live in. Let me repeat this is my opinion only.

Peer - Wanna be one.

hmmmm, good question...........I'd choose reporter, commentator for
myself.......If the work provokes, it is dependent on what one chooses to represent and the views of whoever is seeing it.

lover

Violet Lake<

I find your quote from novelist Ayn Rand to be very apropos of our current president.

lust
WH3. Amen.

JL<

I am glad you found Miss Rand's quote useful, too.

We'd better not take the discussion of it too far. First Amendent rights are currently bestowed -- it seems -- only upon those who adore Dubya.

That was Mrs. Rand, WH!

I am rereading "The Fountainhead" which was her paean to individual creative rights. James Rosenquist produced some paintings and graphics in the 70's bemoaning the subversion of artist's rights and especially aimed at art dealers.

As far as Dubya, he could be one of the characters, distorted beyond recognition from "Atlas Shrugged." Objectivism's basic selfishness doctrines has its flaws and they can be damning.

rand
LW, amen (again).

I'm not a fan of objectivism either, but she sure has a way with words. The quote was intended as you folks perceive it

I haven't read any of her novels, or seen the film adaptations, but I did get a chance to see an in-depth biography called Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life.

http://www.asenseoflife.com/

Some of the quotes from her TV appearances are golden. For example, during a 1979 appearance on the Tomorrow Show, she said that if anyone destroys this country it'll be the Conservatives. I wonder what she'd think of what's going on right now...

rand
I havn't been able to bring myself to read much of Rand either, partly because of what her philosophy seems to do to her followers--although it probably just selects for the kind of followers her views have. I find the quotation re: conservatives fascinating, given that her philosophy would seem to serve them well, as justfication for their greedy/selfish/socially irresponsible (yet moralistic) lifestyle. All of this is seen most vividly--if you'll forgive my antics--in G.W.Bush's "immoral clarity."

Since you folks like the quote in my sig, perhaps you wouldn't mind a few other choice Ayn Rand quotes I've found:



and this one speaks to the subject of this thread, although I'm not crazy about her use of gender...

rand
I suspect that Rand's abuse of conservatism rests at least partly on the tendency of "corporate" conservatives to impose a morality of compliance and teamwork on employees. An excessive rugged individualism would not serve corporate america very well. Ergo, they would reject Objectivism (even though they give hypocritical assent to "rugged individualism").
I do feel that Rand has romanticized the "man" who stands alone, who swims against the current, who characteristically disagrees with others. Such forms of resistance are treated as ENDS in themselves. To me, creative individuals are those who will both/either cooperate and/or deviate in the interest of their creative goals. If the realization of their goals requires (as a MEANS not an end) resistance to others' expectations and demands, so be it. If it requires cooperation, so be it, as well. But there's no artistic, or philosophical need to fetishize either compliance or resistance.

It does seem fetishistic Her philosophy is almost as rigid and prosaic as the totalitarianism she despised.