What do you mean?

[Tokolosh]

They still play the same game. Only difference is that they make their own rules on a different platform. There's no way of escaping it.

How can an artist be also an outsider, then? I don't see the logic in what you're saying.

[Tokolosh]

Why not? Anyway, I have to catch my ferry in 10min.

To be continued.......

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by Florya

Oooh! Spooky! Could they also bend spoons with the power of their brains?

Why do you feel the need to interprate the work of others? What purpose does it serve? What makes you think that it's any of your business?

Ok, you're just being stupid.

[Rob Instigator]

to say that art needs no audience is a LIE

all art needs an audience, and art without an audience is not art.

music without an audience is pointless. art without a viewer is pointless.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

Should you not use those words on some accompanying text to explain what is obviously not coming across from the finished product itself, then? The very fact that the visual aspect of the work you've produced can't sustain its own appeal by itself is enough to make it a severe case of weakness in the talent of the artist himself.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to sarramkrop again.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by Florya

Wrong on 4 out of 6. Art has nothing to do with talent, technique, craftsmanship or materials.
It has everything to do with thought and expression.

The more I think about it, the more I think that we are arguing at cross purposes.

You seem to see art as the product, I see it as a state of mind.

Art doesn't require an audience, it is beyond praise or criticism because it is an insight into the mind of an individual, and no one (not even your beloved Brian Sewell) has the right to comment on the work unless it is to express their own, individual, aesthetic opinion on how the work affects them and them alone.

No one's opinion is any more or less valid than anyone elses when it comes to art because we are all unique and have our own unique perceptions, and these perceptions help to form our opinions.

If the artist is happy with the work, then the art is good. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.

GOOD art has everything to do with talent, process, skill, technique, etc. EVERYTHING.
Art is not just about the image presented, but also about HOW it is presented, how it was made, etc.


ART IS the product. Otherwise everyone is an artist in their own mind, which is BULLSHIT. eve conceptual art was actually the words used to describe the concept, not a thought in someone's head.

NOTHING is beyond praise or criticism. that is naive and childish. In the real world, anything you create is up for criticism and analysis.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by Tokolosh

Edit: I strongly believe that the artist should never be concerned or even think about the publics opinion when it's finally presented to them at a gallery.
If they create art with that in mind, it isn't art.

tokolosh, art by it's very functiojn, is communication, and one does not attempt communication without at the very least, thinking some about who you are trying to communicate to.
in that very real and urgent sense, art HAS to be made with the viewer/listener/etc somewhat in mind.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by Florya

No they don't. All they have is their own personal opinion based on their individual perception. That's all anyone has. The only people that think they have this 'natural flair' are themselves, and that's an ego thing.

Florya, I am sorry to ay this is a very chuildish and naive and completely mis-informed view of art.
art is communication, and someone who has studied art and stufdied artists and music and theorya nd art history will see a work based NOT only on his personal opinions, but how that work fits into the continuity of art as a human endeavor. a person with art history background will see something in an artwork that may not be evident EVER to someone without such a background. Only children see things as naively a syou descirbe and children don;t know jack fucking shit about anything except whether they "like" it or not.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by Tokolosh

As far as I'm concerned, an artist should isolate him/herself in their studio and concentrate purely on their work. Nothing else.
Speculating about what the audience might/might not think of it afterwards, shouldn't even cross their minds.

all you end up with if you do this is pure navel-gazing art, which is EASY, boring, and pointless.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by Florya

Oooh! Spooky! Could they also bend spoons with the power of their brains?

Why do you feel the need to interprate the work of others? What purpose does it serve? What makes you think that it's any of your business?

If you want to know the 'meaning' behind a work of art, ask the artist, not Brian Sewell.
"Ah, but what if the artist is dead?" I hear you cry.
Well in that case, you're stuffed. Unless the artist took the time to write down his motivation, emotions and life experiences relevant to each and every work he produced, you should accept that you will never know what they were.

And anyone who purports to know, for certain, the reasons why an artist produces a specific artwork without that information is a charlatan.

this is just NOT true Florya. NOT TRUE AT ALL.
art does not exist outside of life, or history or society. anyone with a basic art history background can SEE quite easily influences, ideas, and references in art, and if they might be guessing slightly then that is allright, for it points out where the vioewer is coming from with his or her own perception.

[Tokolosh]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

all you end up with if you do this is pure navel-gazing art, which is EASY, boring, and pointless.

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?

[Rob Instigator]

they call that "folk art"

[Tokolosh]

Ok, but can it qualify as being good art?

[Rob Instigator]

oh hell yeah.

[Tokolosh]

Therefore, by definition it doesn't need an audience to proclaim it being art, right?

[Rob Instigator]

nothing needs an audience to be called art, but with no audience the art is irrelevant. if nooone sees it, then it may as well not exist. However, in th case above tokolosh, YOU have seen it, and YOU were moved by it, and therefore YOU are the audience proclaiming it "art" see?

art is the yoga (union) between the work itself, and the viewer's mind. It therefore is different for each viewer.

[Tokolosh]

I think that a lot of people get confused with the quality of art that's made for oneself, and art that's made with the intention of getting it sold. Both can be art, but there's a distinctive difference.

[Rob Instigator]

I see no difference whatsoever. whether a work is sold or not is purely up in the air.
some works are created on commission. that does not amke them any less of an art piece. Picasso"s Guernica, possibly the greatest anti-war artwork in the history of man, was created as a commission show piece for the World's Expo.

in my opinion, there are no works of art made by an artist just for themselves. All works are meant for display, whether they are for sale or not. art in a vacuum is pointless and useless. even art made by you just for you will end up on your wall and seen by anyone who enteres that room.