The artistic experience

Status
Not open for further replies.
hey guys, empathy is the ability to share and understand the feelings of others.

there is no qualifier on the ability that the feelings must only be "good"
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLT
No, it really doesn't. It requires only that you understand how to make people feel something, not that you feel it yourself.

This. I've never felt the desire to control and abuse vulnerble people, nor do I understand the impulse in others. I have observed it, however, and have developed enough skill to write about things and people for which I lack empathy. Whether that skill constitutes art, craft, and/or a writer denying an inherent empathy for evil is a philosophical question leading to a thousand conjectures, ten thousand debates, and not a single definitive answer.
 
From a letter written by Anaïs Nin, to a seventeen-year-old aspiring author by the name of Leonard W., whom she had taken under her wing as creative mentor.

You must not fear, hold back, count or be a miser with your thoughts and feelings. It is also true that creation comes from an overflow, so you have to learn to intake, to imbibe, to nourish yourself and not be afraid of fullness. The fullness is like a tidal wave which then carries you, sweeps you into experience and into writing. Permit yourself to flow and overflow, allow for the rise in temperature, all the expansions and intensifications. Something is always born of excess: great art was born of great terrors, great loneliness, great inhibitions, instabilities, and it always balances them. If it seems to you that I move in a world of certitudes, you, par contre, must benefit from the great privilege of youth, which is that you move in a world of mysteries. But both must be ruled by faith.

Why Emotional Excess is Essential to Writing and Creativity
 
That's the cougar lady that wrote gooner books.
also congrats to everyone on hitting Godwin's Law in two pages. shits hilarious.
 
That's the cougar lady that wrote gooner books.
Maybe a little more complicated than that. All I've read of hers is A Spy in the House of Love and thought it a strong piece of writing. That and a letter to Henry Miller in a book my wife brought home from the charity shop last week. By the intro, she wasn't always a cougar and early experiences may have shaped her outlook on sexual matters.
also congrats to everyone on hitting Godwin's Law in two pages. shits hilarious.
It may be noted, however, that the thread didn't descend into bitter acrimony and left that subject matter pretty promptly.

Regarding the writing business, I must say I don't have stories bursting out of me. I'm not one to regale company in bar by night. I'm not even all that interested in entertaining people.

I am interested in some things, though; people being one. I'm as, if not more, interested in someone sitting around doing very little as I am in them following their path of discovery that forms the plot of the story someone (sometimes themselves) puts them in. Another thing that's interesting is language, expecially when an author fucks around with it and puts the thing together in ways that surprise and delight. There's nothing like a series of well-constructed sentences to sate the palate.

I like to write with these two points of interest. I don't care to entertain a reader, but fully admit it's extremely satisfying when they come back and say "yeah, I get ya." I like to have stories published so I can whatsapp the webpage and show to a few people and say "I made that!"
 
What does the artistic experience mean to you, or for you?

Wow! What a question! Maybe because it is so vague. What is Art? Why do we make Art? Do we feel Art? See Art? Smell it? Taste it? Hear it? Why? Who can do it? … and quite a lot more. It’s a damn good question. That’s why the response has been so vast and varied. I saw it by chance and if I don’t answer now, I won’t sleep tonight. My thoughts, which recapitulate many of your responses, may be taken with a pinch of salt (no offence meant!) But please bear with me. Starting at the last in the above list:

Who can do Art? Anybody. Everybody. Artists. One day, one of my stories that I post on the forum may be a great work of art. A one off! But I’m not an Artist. Seventy-odd years ago I decided I wanted to be an artist and went to an Art School. I was doing quite well but one day I had an experience that shewed me I would never be able to sustain the type of vitality necessary to be one. I described this experience in a story I posted in the old Forum. We are all potential one-offers. Artists are made up differently. You can’t learn to be an Artist. You can learn a craft. The better you learn the craft, the nearer you get to making art.

Why do we make Art? Artists, because they can’t do anything else. They`re made that way. The really good ones are often self-centered narcissists, antisocial with no empathy or sympathy and often extremely lonely even if they are in the performing arts.

We, the potential one-offers, are lonely, too. It’s a characteristic of our gregarious species. People are alone even in a crowd, an office, a family or marriage. It’s in the nature of the individual. It hurts and we try to solve it by reaching out to others. In the small town where I live, walkers by say to each other ‘Good Day, to you.’ even though we have never seen each other before and do not expect to again. You might argue this is just a question of manners or acknowledgement we exist. One day when I was leaving my building, a woman leaving hers on the other side of the busy street waived to me. I had never seen her before. I was feeling particularly lonely that day and she made the sun come out for me. Now be honest. Why do you contribute to this forum? You may say it’s for the critiques of your work. Maybe, but deep down you are reaching out to other people, hopefully like you. Via your stories. More than just “Good Day to you” your story is saying “This is me. I’ve got something to tell you”. This is the germ of Art.

What is Art? Good question. Rather than a PREscription, I favour a DEScription. Rather than “I’ve got something to tell you,” it is “I’ve got something for you to feel through what I tell you.” The essence of Art is to transmit feelings, emotions, rather than facts and may affect any of our senses, even taste – remember the scene in Ratatouille where the critic sees the vision of his mother when he eats the vegetable stew? This is probably why good Artists are so difficult. The effort required to conjure up and transmit over time feelings they do not experience first hand themselves must be huge.

The advantage of a descriptive answer like this is that it is ample enough to encompass most Art, even, for example, the gruesome paintings uploaded in the responses since the feelings generated may be related to morality, ideology, what have you. And also it permits the appreciation of one-off Art on an equal footing to that of Artist produced Art.

The disadvantage is that it includes the receptor of the reaching-out communication. My daughter is thoroughly bored while tears stream down my cheeks watching the interpretation of a piece of baroque music on the telly. Neither she nor I claim our tastes represent real Art at the expense of the other’s.

Last of all, in reality I’m reaching out to you …. I feel I have something to say. Maybe, though, you’ve heard it all before. In any case it isn’t Art!
 
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.
Jerald's comment had nothing to do with Hitler's politics, because he wasn't told who the artist was. It reflected his impression that the artist in question was incapable of eliciting the sort of reaction that Jerald felt was crucial to the mission of the artist. There was no communication, not even a sense that the artist had anything he wanted to say.

There are plenty of successful artists who are sociopaths and bad dudes, but they make good art because they are able to communicate their feelings eloquently and paint pictures, or write words, or give performances that resonated with the beholder. I think Jerald would agree with that (I'll ask him the next time I see him).
 
So, I wonder if Hitler felt anything when he was painting these scenes. If he did not, he was not producing art.
It's immaterial what an artist is or is not feeling when creating something. It only matters whether a connection is formed between the artist and the viewer.
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.
It requires only that you understand how to make people feel something, not that you feel it yourself. Hitler was brilliant at it.

That brings up an interesting point. effective demagogues can create all sorts of emotions in the people that they are trying to persuade, and go to great pains to produce those emotions. In that sense, they are great performers and good artists. Their speeches are performances, as much as an actor's performance. They are very good at what they do. Again, whether they actually subscribe to the beliefs they are espousing is beside the point. I have no doubt that Martin Luther King, Jr, one of the last century's great orators, believed every word of what he was saying. But evil people can do an equally good job of playing their audience, as history continually reminds us.

Is acting art? If so, does an actor who plays a murderer have to have the feelings of hate or fear that they bring to a performance? Is writing art? If so, does writer writing about a murder actually have to have the experience of murdering someone? We'd say, "Of course not. As long as they can convince the reader or viewer that their performance appears true-to-life, they are allowed to lie to their heart's content." It's the connection with the audience that matters.
 
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.



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



That's the magic of art!



this ignores the fact that to be art it must be true to the artist
So, the answer is, yes, you are judging "art" by the "artist". If you believe the intent was "false" (which makes no sense, by the way. You can't know what was in someone's head when they created something), that means it's not art. Doesn't sound very magical to me.
 
effective demagogues can create all sorts of emotions in the people that they are trying to persuade

I think the main emotions that effective demagogic autocrats inflame are fear and hate
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLT
So, the answer is, yes, you are judging "art" by the "artist".

No, by the connection

If you believe the intent was "false"

Are you suggesting propaganda is not false?

Doesn't sound very magical to me.

I did not say propaganda was magical, I said the connection made between the artist and the appreciator of the art via the art is magical
 
Re: Hitler's narcissism (just another moldy orange?). Fair enough, although if social media tells us anything, is that any ideology can be used narcissistically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLT
Re: Hitler's narcissism (just another moldy orange?). Fair enough, although if social media tells us anything, is that any ideology can be used narcissistically.

Valid observation ... but not sure it belongs in this thread ... maybe in the Philosophy Thread

(But note - we avoid discussion on these boards about current politics)

 
Valid observation ... but not sure it belongs in this thread ... maybe in the Philosophy Thread

(But note - we avoid discussion on these boards about current politics)


Oh. Fair enough. I saw him mentioned upthread (or at least, I thought he did). I'll keep in mind the Philosophy thread.
 
No, by the connection
Yet, you seem to be deciding if there's a connection based on the artist's thoughts and intentions, which really isn't possible.


Are you suggesting propaganda is not false?
I'm saying something can be propaganda and you not know it, and you can connect to it. Sure, you'll hate it later, but that has nothing to do with art.


I did not say propaganda was magical, I said the connection made between the artist and the appreciator of the art via the art is magical
I said:
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.
And you said:
That's the magic of art!
And here is my that's not magical comment:
So, the answer is, yes, you are judging "art" by the "artist". If you believe the intent was "false" (which makes no sense, by the way. You can't know what was in someone's head when they created something), that means it's not art. Doesn't sound very magical to me.
Where did I say propaganda was magical? I didn't.

But since you're devoted to the subject - how do you feel about Norman Rockwell?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top