Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tokolosh
I think it all depends on what you like. Introspective art can be very interesting. Well at least for me. It's a peek into someones mind.
Also, art obviously needs an audience, but I don't think that an artist necessarily needs to create art with that as the primary intention.
Getting back to Sarra about Outsider art. I have a friend who works at a home with handicapped people, and one of his patients makes very intriguing stuff. From time to time, visitors bring him old jerseys, socks, scarfs etc, and he unknits everything and rolls up the wool into giant 2 meter wide oval shapes. They sometimes take years to finish. He's extremely passionate, obsessive, systematic and determined once he starts. Amazing to see. No pretension whatsoever. No intention to make art and certainly no plan to exhibit it either.
Brut as can be.
I doubt that his work will ever land up in a gallery. Surely it deserves to be credited as art in some way?
|
Anything that has any artistic merit should be considered art, of course. The buying, selling and promoting of it is an inevitable consequence of how this society works. This doesn't mean that art that is being sold or bought has to be bad because ' MONEY IS BAD!!!' or such silly things, though. And I would agree that a lot of the critical apparatus in the art world is parassitic and partly detrimental to the quality of what's being produced, but still a critical apparatus is needed to put things into context and make sure that it is working to the best of its capabilities. There are certainly opinion makers in the art world that should be shot, but there are also critics who know what they are talking about. Few and far inbetween, but they are there and are as pissed off as the competent artists who struggle to make it.