Does Art Create History Or Does History Create Art

Without that artist's expression, the cultural environment might not be remembered...

Smarty pants? My mother used to call me that, I had forgotten about it. OK!

Plus, sometimes the artist leads the cultural environment, oh, from time to time. Oh, I can't really say, just seems that way.

truth
C.I. and Osso, I'm leaving town tomorrow til Tuesday. Maybe by then I'll be able to think up answers to your comments.

Art can only mirror the image within the artist and the artist is just a conduit of the image.

Art historians and curators can only talk and write about those images. Talking about and disecting and analyzing artistic images does not create history in my opinion.

Because most artists do not write about their own work they pay the price of allowing others to attempt to create images in the minds of the viewer.

art vs history vs art history


this is the look on my face as I tried to correlate all of your postings.

Here are my 2 cents. I think the missing thread from this conversation is "art for art's sake". Art history is a very malleable converstaion -sort of like the US constitution. It is a living breathing ever changing debate. (in my opinion) Art on the other hand, exists and speaks to us individually - it does not need the exhibits, the write ups , the curators or the viewing public to exist. History is of course also shaped by an individual's actions and often history is immortalized in art - the hard part is to determin which artists are being faithful to the actual moment and which are embellishing.

I am not sure if my thoughts look clear on screen. I may add more later.

Either way , what a great topic!

art
Thanks for reviving this wonderful thread, Paleobarbie. Yes, the fundamental issue is sincerity and authenticity in artwork. This is something artists should talk about with one another--often. They should also talk about how to move ahead in the business, but in ways that least compromise their artistic integrity.