From: E. Shaun Russell (e_shaun@uniserve.com)
Date: Sat Sep 25 1999 - 21:25:28 MDT
Natasha (and Nadia) wrote:
>
>>> > Is it to prove one's ability?
[...]
>>For this Muse, it is different, I *definetely* paint and create to prove
>>myself. Not that I need the approval of *all* people, but if everyone hated
>>my work I would be very crushed. I consider myself a very good artist,
but I
>>like to be seen, heard and liked.
So then, is your need for that approval an emotional response to your
creative ability? Who is it you are creating for?
>Ha! I can just image you proving to yourself and the world that you are
>having fun -:) I'm having fund, damn it - don't pay attention to the
>masterpiece, just think of it as fun!
But again, it comes back to the question of why you are creating art in
the first place. Whether it is sculpture, fugue, haiku, koan or cloisonee
ceramics, there is the underlying basis of creation...and I am asking what
the very core incentive is for that creation. Past and present artists
have called the incentive "God-sent inspiration," others have invoked
muses. However, what I have never heard among artists of any variety (and
I, of course, do *not* stand outside that picture) is a rational
explanation for mankind's inclination to create art. Creation requires
passion, focus and ability, but above all, it requires incentive...or as it
is commonly called, inspiration. But why? What does an artist really
create for? Such questions as posited in my initial post and this one are
not intended to sound antagonistic, but to instead clear up an ambiguous
area which has remained grey for many years: the consumation of reason with
art.
>>>>And again, what *is* the
>>>>purpose of art?
>>Yeah , you might as well ask, what is the purpose of creation, or what is
>>the purpose of expression? (snip)
>
>Ditto.
So why don't I ask then: what *is* the purpose of expression? Is there
not a purpose? I believe that all things have a reason, and all things
have a purpose. I am sure that art does as well, but I think that the main
reason that many scientifically-minded people cannot give a lot of credence
to art in general is that is has no defined basis...no self evident logic.
However, I am positive that there is as much logic within the *need* to
create art as there is in the selection of colors in a painting, words in a
poem and notes in a symphony.
>>And again not to hammer in a point, it is a trained ear that hears the
>>subtley of beats and the scientific instrument that measures the
>harmonics...
>> and both are important to understanding the beast...
>
>I got some more nails.
Though I agree with this statement to an extent, I have a couple
reservations. I am not inclined to paint or draw and have no visual art
theory whatsoever; visual art techniques and methods are mostly unknown to
me. However, I can honestly say that I love paintings such as Edvard
Munch's _The Scream_ and Breughel's _...Fall of Icarus_. Likewise, I am
enraptured by Frank Lloyd Wright's architechture, but possess no
architechtural skills or leanings. In essence, I am not *trained* to see
the beauty of the art, but see beauty nonetheless. Perhaps my untrained
eye is drawn by something deeper than the means to the end...
-------------------------------------------------------
E. Shaun Russell Extropian, Musician, ExI Member
e_shaun@uniserve.com <KINETICIZE *YOUR* POTENTIAL>
-------------------------------------------------------
"The reason I'm involved with Extropy...is to end the carnage."
-Robert Bradbury, Extro-4
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:17 MST