--- Olivier Borzeix <oborzeix@sympatico.ca> escribió:
...and, less cinically, because unexposed art isn't art. An artist who's never gonna show, present or somehow expose anything because he doesn't want to is simply not an artist even if he's the truest, has the best integruty and talent in the world.
I can't say I agree with that. A buried Schiele is still an amazing piece of art, even if it's 2km underground, imho. The only problem is that, in such a case, the artist or nature have deprived us from enjoying the painting.
But what about the artists who don't make a living out of it and who are choosing it? Would you say, as I heard often from art historian or sociologist, that they are not artists just because they do have a day job to pay the bills?
Absolutely not. Have those historians or sociologists thought about the circumstances under which those guys have to make a living? What forces them to keep a daytime job as the average guy and performing their art at night? I think it's totally inaccurate. Perhaps that's the difference between an amateur and an artist, but in that case I would remove any negative connotations in the word "amateur". They're probably artists who have been underexposed or underrated, but that's not a problem, their work will make millions when they're dead. That makes me think of myself when I was at the university. I thought, I can't understand how all these people with a linguistics degree are bar-tendering, they have to be really, really bad. But the truth is much more bitter and complex than that. How did Van Gogh live? Was Henry Grimes born an artist but took a 40 year-hiatus from that condition to reborn again last year? You are or you are not, regarless of what keeps you busy all day or whatever provides you with a slice of bread, I think. Best, Efrén del Valle
Olivier
______________________________________________ Yahoo! lanza su nueva tecnologÃa de búsquedas ¿te atreves a comparar? http://www.viralbusquedas.yahoo.es
...and, less cinically, because unexposed art isn't art. An artist who's never gonna show, present or somehow expose anything because he doesn't want to is simply not an artist even if he's the truest, has the best integruty and talent in the world.
I can't say I agree with that. A buried Schiele is still an amazing piece of art, even if it's 2km underground, imho. The only problem is that, in such a case, the artist or nature have deprived us from enjoying the painting.
I totally agree with you but that's not what I was talking about... I'm talking about an artist who's not willing to show his art, not an artist that is prevented to do so by third parties, contexts or elements.
But what about the artists who don't make a living out of it and who are choosing it? Would you say, as I heard often from art historian or sociologist, that they are not artists just because they do have a day job to pay the bills?
Absolutely not. Have those historians or sociologists thought about the circumstances under which those guys have to make a living? What forces them to keep a daytime job as the average guy and performing their art at night? I think it's totally inaccurate. Perhaps that's the difference between an amateur and an artist, but in that case I would remove any negative connotations in the word "amateur". They're probably artists who have been underexposed or underrated, but that's not a problem, their work will make millions when they're dead. That makes me think of myself when I was at the university. I thought, I can't understand how all these people with a linguistics degree are bar-tendering, they have to be really, really bad. But the truth is much more bitter and complex than that. How did Van Gogh live? Was Henry Grimes born an artist but took a 40 year-hiatus from that condition to reborn again last year? You are or you are not, regarless of what keeps you busy all day or whatever provides you with a slice of bread, I think.
Actually one of the (lame imho) argument I heard was that if they were real artist it'd devour them so much that they couldn't do anything else but that or at least something related (i.e. : music teacher for a musician etc...) Actually, I think it's the "establishment of art"/professional response to the fear that the hobbyists might get somewhere they've long forgotten after too much meandering forma thinkings. Olivier
participants (2)
-
Efrén del Valle -
Olivier Borzeix