The artistic experience

[Naomasa298]

You're still not getting it.

I think you're the one that doesn't, but my outlook and yours vary wildly.

An unsuccessful artist. he couldn't draw people.

"Unsuccessful" how, exactly? He could draw landscapes. They may not have had a lot of artistic merit in some eyes, but where is that a measurement of art? If you take that as a yardstick, then does writing have to reach a certain level before it can be regarded as art? Who decides what is "successful" art vs "unsuccessful" art?

Are you, or I, any more successful at being an artist than Hitler was?

 

[Louanne Learning]

I think you're the one that doesn't, but my outlook and yours vary wildly.

Oh no, I understand your point of view. But it fails to understand what I mean by art.

then does writing have to reach a certain level before it can be regarded as art?

See, your saying this goes to show that you do not understand what I shared in my post above

Expressing your ideas with truth and creativity is the level to aspire to

Who decides what is "successful" art vs "unsuccessful" art?

Good question. I was being somewhat facetious when I mentioned that Hitler was unsuccessful because he couldn't draw people, but maybe that really does have something to do with it. Hitler could not connect with people, and so there was nothing human in his art. If you look at one of his paintings of a castle or a building, and you feel nothing, that would probably not be art to you. So, I wonder if Hitler felt anything when he was painting these scenes. If he did not, he was not producing art.

 

[Homer Potvin]

Hitler could not connect with people

Hitler was the most persuasive person ever to walk to the Earth. You could argue that nobody in the history of human civilization connected with people better than Hitler. We may not like his methods or results, but he single-handedly changed the course of history and the nature of the species.

Completely irrelevant to the discussion, of course.

 

[Rigor Mortis]

Completely irrelevant to the discussion, of course.

Except, on point, it might be misleading to suggest that artists are intrinsically good people.

 

[Pyroglyphian]

A piece of writing whose function is merely to communicate, would probably not be art.

I liked your distinction here. I think it can be seen, from responses to the thread, that the concept of art carries much baggage; whilst the word is defined quite simply in the dictionary, what is actually accepted as “art” varies from person to person. This makes it easy to get bogged down in conceptualising.

Like you, I instinctively link art with creativity and self-expression, and I add craft to this too. Namely, the degree to which someone may be considered an artist is roughly proportionate to the degree to which they elevate their concern for the creative/expressive aspects of their craft – be it cooking or tree surgery or anything in between. This is art not as a concept but an action with an intent; not something that is but something that is done. The “artistic experience”, then, isn’t some lofty ideal; rather, the mundane process of improvement in the chosen medium.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Hitler was the most persuasive person ever to walk to the Earth. You could argue that nobody in the history of human civilization connected with people better than Hitler

Connection must be two-way. Do not confuse the manipulative tactics of megalomaniac narcissists for "connection." Connection requires that you have at least some empathy, and Hitler had none.

Being an artist requires that you have some empathy. How else to feel what your characters feel?

 

[Louanne Learning]

it might be misleading to suggest that artists are intrinsically good people.

Interesting point. None would dispute that Caravaggio was a great artist, but he was also arrogant - and a murderer.

Art may reflect dark themes, too.

Here's three of Caravaggio's works -

The Beheading of St. John


Judith Beheading Holofernes


David with the Head of Goliath

 

[Naomasa298]

Connection and empathy is only ever one way. It is not inherently mutual. You aren't both people.

And Hitler understood how other people felt very well indeed. He also understood how to make them feel what he wanted them to. And Hitler was also a writer, one who has achieved far greater success with Mein Kampf than anyone on this forum ever has. People still read it today. If you claim writing is art, well, that alone makes him an artist, never mind a painter. He sure as hell wrote to make people feel something.

 

[Louanne Learning]

And Hitler was also a writer, one who has achieved far greater success with Mein Kampf than anyone on this forum ever has.

Everything that I have read in review of this book points to it being atrocious writing.

If it enjoyed success, it was because it was propaganda, not art.

If you claim writing is art, well, that alone makes him an artist, never mind a painter.

Writing can be art, but it is not art just by virtue of it being writing. Please refer to my earlier posts.

 

[Naomasa298]

Everything that I have read in review of this book points to it being atrocious writing.

If it enjoyed success, it was because it was propaganda, not art.



Writing can be art, but it is not art just by virtue of it being writing. Please refer to my earlier posts.

So who judges whether it's art or not? Who judges whether your work, or mine, is art?

And the fact that it's bad writing doesn't disqualify it from being art, whether it's bad art or not.

It is not "not art" just because it's Hitler doing it.

 

[Trish]

Connection must be two-way. Do not confuse the manipulative tactics of megalomaniac narcissists for "connection." Connection requires that you have at least some empathy, and Hitler had none.

Connection must be two-way? How is that? Are you saying that the connection felt by the people he "manipulated" wasn't real? They did not feel what they felt?

To expand on that, if an artist makes art, they have a connection to it. The person looking at or reading what they made develops their own connection to what they made. The "art" is a medium, but itself has no feelings, hopes, dreams, or expectations. It simply is. The artist doesn't know every person their art touches, and it is not required that they do. The person connecting with the art may even see it in an entirely different light that is foreign to the creator, but the connection is still real.

Hitler, since he's the one being referenced, was arguably much better at understanding motivation and emotion than anyone he ever spoke to. It's why narcissists are so successful. They are able to use those tools without conscience for the destruction caused. Empathy has absolutely nothing to do with connection. Neither does intent.

Being an artist requires that you have some empathy. How else to feel what your characters feel?

No, it really doesn't. It requires only that you understand how to make people feel something, not that you feel it yourself. Hitler was brilliant at it.

 

[Naomasa298]

This all comes back to the saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Art is the same. Whether something is art is not for the creator to judge, which is what seems to be implied here. Maybe someone would judge something I write to be art. They're welcome to. I can't insist to them that it is, or it isn't. Just like I can't insist to them that I must be an artist or not.

 

[Naomasa298]

Anyway, I've said all on this subject I care to say. I'm outta here.

 

[Homer Potvin]

@Louanne Learning you do realize Pablo Picasso is generally considered a narcissist and sociopath who lacked empathy, right?

 

[JLT]

And just remember this. Hitler was an artist.

A comment on this: I found a book of Hitler's art at my local library and showed it to my friend Jerald (whom I mentioned earlier). I didn't show him the name of the artist. He looked at a few and said "There's nothing there. It might as well be postcards." He had no impression of any emotional content the artist might have had when creating the work.

 

[Homer Potvin]

A comment on this: I found a book of Hitler's art at my local library and showed it to my friend Jerald (whom I mentioned earlier). I didn't show him the name of the artist. He looked at a few and said "There's nothing there. It might as well be postcards." He had no impression of any emotional content the artist might have had when creating the work.

Yup. He painted postcards and sold them after his father's pension ran out. By all accounts everything he did was shit, which is fine if you want to disqualify him as an artist for that, but not because he lacked empathy or was a bad guy or anything. The art world is loaded with sociopaths and bad dudes, so to suggest there's an empathy prerequisite for art to resonate with the observer isn't supported by history.

 

[Stuart Dren]

Okay so we were only able to make it to page 2 without mentioning Hitler.

So, I wonder if Hitler felt anything when he was painting these scenes. If he did not, he was not producing art.

Better to use a qualifier that to try and remove it from the set entirely. It's also a stretch to imply that someone is ever feeling absolutely nothing, even a sociopath.

 

[Louanne Learning]

So who judges whether it's art or not?

Well, I guess we all have our takes on this. I think I have made my position pretty clear.

As far as writing is concerned, its art has something to do with this -

a restless mind + questions + contemplation + quest for understanding + a desire to share + a need for expression + honesty/truth + love of language + discipline

It is not "not art" just because it's Hitler doing it.

Lol, sorry, I am laughing because you are so intent to put down my point-of-view that you're invoking Hitler.

No, but I do think there were other, more pressing, things on Hitler's mind besides producing art

 

[Louanne Learning]

Connection must be two-way? How is that? Are you saying that the connection felt by the people he "manipulated" wasn't real? They did not feel what they felt?

Well, a connection by definition joins two things. So, to have a connection between people must involve at least two people.

Now, imo, the connection made with art is the connection between the artist and the receiver of the art.

With a writer and a reader, this is a connection based on shared experiences and shared feelings.

A propagandist is not connected to the manipulated in the same way. Propaganda is a power play.

Propaganda is false, and writing as art shares the writer's truth. Art does not manipulate, but shares.

The "art" is a medium

exactly. It's a conduit from the artist to an appreciator of it.

The artist doesn't know every person their art touches, and it is not required that they do.

That's the magic of art!

No, it really doesn't. It requires only that you understand how to make people feel something, not that you feel it yourself. Hitler was brilliant at it.

this ignores the fact that to be art it must be true to the artist

 

[Louanne Learning]

@Louanne Learning you do realize Pablo Picasso is generally considered a narcissist and sociopath who lacked empathy, right?

Okay, thanks, but I'm not sure how this changes my ideas about what constitutes art