Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by artistpoet
Not sure how your reply relates to my post, or to anything else I've said in this thread (though you never know; I've said a lot in it).
As for Michael John Griffiths' work--are you he?--I would say it was high quality illustration rather than what I'd call art. You probably disagree; that is your right, and I would not dream of taking it away from you.
The CIA have their hands in everything, I'm sure. They even discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'm not kidding--the first Westerner to see and recognize the value of a sample of the scrolls was the CIA bureau chief at the US Embassy in Tel Aviv back in 1949 or whenever it was. He had a sideline in antiques dealing and was introduced to a Bedouin who had some old scrolls for sale. The man had a sample. The CIA agent took it up to the embassy's flat roof, unrolled it and had a look. A few bits got blown away in the wind. The agent was even more blown away.
The name of the CIA man, incidentally, was Miles Copeland. One of his sons, named Stewart, later became famous for hitting Sting and other things.
Originally posted by artistpoet
Yes the link is my own website - Your comments are a bit of a joke to me - Ilustrator indeed - Well I have been called many things and of course you are free to make your own interpretation - BUT to say my work is not art is a very very cheap way of undermining - I am an artist - ARE YOU?
Out of the tradition established by E.S. Thompson have emerged the school of so-called "wildlife artists" whose highly detailed work better fits the description of illustration than of fine art, and which has found itself between the covers of stacks of full-colour, folio-format books, most of them printed outside of Canada. The best-known of these pictorial naturalists are the ornithological painters J. Fenwick Lansdowne and T.M. SHORTT, followed by George McLean, Glen Loates, Robert BATEMAN and their numerous imitators.
Bateman's 1977 decision to enter the reproduction market became a huge controversy that has coloured his reputation as an artist. He wanted to make his work accessible to more people, so he personally signs from 950 - 12,000 copies of each of his paintings.
Of course I can't. It only takes one self-abuser in an attic somewhere to prove me wrong.
But I make things for a living, as well as for pleasure.
What I'm saying here is that I understand the psychology. Even the most modest, the most antisocial and reclusive of artists wants people to see her work and be impressed by it.
The only other motive I can think of is creating pornography for one's personal titillation.
Ultimately, it is a fitness advertisement. A type of male sexual strategy.
I agree this begs the question of why there are female artists, but that isn't really so hard to answer.
...And then someone else reads it and is impressed and the warmth and tingliness rise by orders of magnitude.
Where does this meaning come from? Think about it.
Your comments are a bit of a joke to me - Ilustrator indeed - Well I have been called many things and of course you are free to make your own interpretation - BUT to say my work is not art is a very very cheap way of undermining - I am an artist - ARE YOU?
Perhaps you buy into the Damain Hirst disease - My friend went to school with him - he is more a biologist with no basic artistic credentials
Every human being on this freaking planet is an artist in one way or another. If you crochet dainty ear muffs in a design you've invented, you're an artist. If you whittle little dogs out of a knot of wood, you're an artist.
do you think art is rational Astyanax?
I keep asking what is art - why art?
for creative people – creativity is almost an obsessive compulsive disorder – it cannot not be done. We’re always noting the color, the shade, the contrast, the angle...the flow of a sentence – choosing one word over another – a chord, harmony or rhythm - the turn of a foot, the gestures...
I personally don’t think the rational reasons for making art that we give each other or tell ourselves matter. Whether they’re political or philosophical reasons – intended to shock, provoke, describe, explain, please or only decorate – the resulting art was still created by an irrational process.
you tell me you wouldn’t write if there was no audience to write for – but I don’t believe you :-)
I am reasonably sure you rearrange sentences in your head all the time and linger over certain words – committing things to paper isn’t necessary to that process.
Not 'how cool am I for having made this,' but 'how cool is this'?
I stand by what I said earlier on – the relationship between art and artist is intimate and private. No matter what the reason is for beginning a work or whatever happens after – they always have that time alone together first. And that time is special – meaningful – with or without any recognition or reward.
I am a female artist begging for that answer (to the question of why there are female artists).
(The meaning comes from...) the knowledge and experience of all humanity gathered throughout all of our shared history. And then it comes from me - I get final say. Especially about the worth part.
Like I say you show your ignorance or perhaps you are so unsure of your self you feel you need to attack others in a petty undermining way to make your self look like you actually know what your on about.
I am a painter - what are you?
I'm sorry for not replying earlier, Spiramirabilis, but parsing your posts isn't always easy for me the first time round. Let me just try to answer you questions, and see where that takes us.
Never argue with a critic
Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
here you go masqua - meet the king:
Whether it's sniffing the air for the scent of prey or the muscular tensions evident in their posture prior to an attack, it's palpable.
I like this answer – because it’s true. But I have to ask – why can’t we express it any other way? And what is it exactly that’s so difficult to express? Annoying questions – but I don’t ask to annoy
Do you want to know whether I think making art is rational behaviour? I do. It is done for rational purposes, such as expressing what the artist cannot express in any other way...
:-) I like the word endorsed
...but intuition must be endorsed by reason or it is valueless.
The making of art has unconsious components, episodes of altered consciousness during the process of creation and so on. All of us who create are familiar with these things.
or, until it looks like something reason can trust. Maybe art is the wolf in sheep’s clothing - not the product of an altered state, but one of our alternate states come for a visit
But a work of art isn't complete until the eye of reason has given it the once-over, and deemed it acceptable.
I think your answers make perfect sense – it’s just that I think there’s more to it than that
If you aren't satisfied with the answers I have already supplied--fitness advertisement, status ploy--then I'm afraid I can't help you.
:-) really? You can’t be serious. If you are, then I have to say – your parser is on the fritz. But this would explain why you chose to bypass the entire subject of dreams – it’s a big fuzzy, slippery-slidey grey area of iffiness that probably annoys most of you scientific materialist types into a conniption
You appear to be seeking an answer that will ennoble the act of creation, frame it as divine or mystical.
interesting – I think these obssesive/compulsive urges are in us from the start. You say addiction – I say compulsion – am I splitting hairs? But then, self indulgence? curious about that...living is self indulgent – it’s hard to avoid. Of course creativity is self indulgent
...for creative people – creativity is almost an obsessive compulsive disorder – it cannot not be done...
Yes. This is the result of years of conditioning and self-indulgence. Making art is an addiction.
but it is like that to some people Astyanax – people who haven’t yet learned how to see it will see Jackson Pollock as either a fraud or a crazy person
But the development of a work of art is rational, however woozy or stoned the artist was at the time. If it weren't, the artwork itself would be bizarre and irrational--an expression of true randomness. Some people on this thread seem to think Jackson Pollock's work is like that, but of course it isn't.
The two can be separate? Also – if you say you wouldn’t write for yourself alone – you wouldn’t :-)
That's not writing, that's thinking about writing.
no – what you’ve just said is what I meant and all I meant
Are you talking about rewards separate and distinct from the simple pleasure of making something, and doing what one does best?
some men make excellent women – but they never take that as a compliment :-)
2. Because human beings tend to be more or less androgynous, and some women make damn good men.