From: QueeneMUSE@aol.com
Date: Sat Sep 25 1999 - 19:26:58 MDT
E-shaun begins by asking.......
>An even deeper question
>(and one which I have never been able to answer for myself) is *why* an
>artist creates in the first place.
Natasha:
>>It is like this creative intelligence growing in the brain that
sends
signals through the capillaries to the intricate network of the body
--
from the esophagus down through to the "gut" and causing a wonderful
ache, a anxiously awaited joy to express!
Well put, indeed. And to me also almost an erotic satisfaction, a euphoria
that occurs when I am in that state, sometimes to the point where I have to
almost stop working out of overwhelm.
I believe other arts besides 'art' probably cause that kind of euphoria, i
have heard it expressed by mathematicians and musicans as well.
> Is it to prove one's ability?
>> Natasha:
>>If I produce a painting -- it is to not to establish to anyone else
my own
authenticity or validity. My work speaks for itself and the emotion
of
expression has its own worth.
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.
I need it to survive, almost as much as the money I make from it. It is a
very important part of my art - validation. I have learned this about myself
and I therefore put my work in front of the public as much as possible. Which
is very hard to do for me. Since it matters so very much.... sigh....
> If so,
>why is it necessary to attain popular approval for one's own creations?
Natasha:
>>It isn't necessary. It is business. I'm not interested in popular
approval as much as I am interested in producing work that is
valuable and
having my business successful. To questions the necessity of getting
approval sure sounds like a very insecure person. Not good for
creating or
expression.
Damn right, Natasha, and a lot of people think artists don't really "work".
I am always hearing "oh how fun that must be" - fun... hah!!! Well,
shee-it, it is none other than, bone-crushing, finger-numbing, back-breaking,
muscle-building hard-ass physical labor. And if I don't recieve renumerative
compensation of the highest order, I'd be nuts to do it for a living , given
the kind of stigmas attached.
>Why does an artist feel the need to either
>conform to or react against popular culture?
Natasha:
>>I suppose the same reason anyone would conforms or reacts? It is not a
prescribed character trait of us artists -:)
Who are you to say what we feel a need to do? I paint pretty things, that
have nothing to do with pop culture, then I blatantly offend stutus quo in
the next breath.
I would sugeest that you re-examine the above statement for bias. What I will
say is that a lot of artists make their living by tuning in to what is known
as the "Zeitgeist (SP?)" of a culture ( Pulp Fiction good example) and
massaging it to make a statement. That 's what it takes to make a buck....
>And again, what *is* the
>purpose of art?
Natasha:
Imagine a world without it? Can we get through a day without
interfacing
with art?
Yeah , you might as well ask, what is the purpose of creation, or what is the
purpose of expression? The purpose of art - of any discipline. What kind of
art? Of course I assume you mean visual art: if so are you talking about
images? Sculpture? Graphic Art? Animation? Tattoos? How about Pageantry?
Performance? Film? Net.art? Music? Storytelling? Design? Decoration?
Clowning? Choreography? Lighting? Theater? Healing? Journalism? ...ad
infinitum. What a general question.. be more specific. Even popular art is so
diverse!!!
The purpose of "cloisonee ceramics" is very differnent than the purpose of
"Body piercing". Both are art. ( or, arguably, neither)
>So when talking
>about popular art, is there a lowest common denominator of sorts to
>determine what people will like or want to see?
Natasha:
>> I'm not sure we can group civilization together so tightly by
giving a
one-liner sound bite to "art for civilization's sake."
Enuff said. Except, I would add, where is this question coming from, and why
do you ask it. And what -- to you -- is lowest denominator popular art?
hmm.... for me I woudl say.... Beany Babies?
(snip -- Natasha's good answer about storytelling)
>Natasha:
>Art and aesthetics and our senses - seeing, hearing, tasting,
touching
smelling, loving are such a sensorial experience. Let them speak to
us
and dance with us! OH! Here comes a gllimmer of light across my
studio
wall. Delightful play of elements.
And in well made and well recieved creative '"arts" - you may find that an
outlet for finely tuned emotion is expressed.. and felt and heard and played
with such a love of life that it might even touch you somewher in your core
essence awake with joy or tears.....
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...
and maybe a glass of wine will help too... ; )
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:16 MST