Piet Mondrian lived between 1872 and 1944. Pre-internet yes, but how "pre-modern" really? Dutch Mondrian lived in a small country with other artists, museums, books, libraries, photographs, and eventually sound recordings (granted, not very good sound for quite a while after their appearance) and film. Even radio, at some point.

Now, When Bach was 20 and just starting out, (1705) he walked 500 miles from Arnstadt to Lubeck and back to hear the 68 year old Dietrich Buxtehude play the organ. Buxtehude was well known among musicians, and they could read the scores, IF they could get ahold of them--which they might not. Once Bach got to Lubeck he decided to stay and soak up as much Buxtehude as he could (much to the annoyance of his employers in Arnstadt.) That's closer to pre-modern.

Here's a sample of Buxtehude, just in case you haven't heard his music.

I took your question as to whether it was my experience to be sarcastic, since none of us were alive in the time period I was referring to. I assumed the sarcasm meant you must disagree with the concept, and since I don't appreciate that sort of sarcasm, I asked if you disagreed. What exactly are you trying to point out here? Can you be more clear?

Piet Mondrian lived between 1872 and 1944. Pre-internet yes, but how "pre-modern" really? Dutch Mondrian lived in a small country with other artists, museums, books, libraries, photographs, and eventually sound recordings (granted, not very good sound for quite a while after their appearance) and film. Even radio, at some point. — Bitter Crank

Sure. The quote from Mondrian does suggest that he was painting and developing his style before he was introduced to some of his main contemporaries. Maybe that's not entirely accurate? When I read the quote, it was a jumping off point that got me thinking about the subject of this thread.

Now, When Bach was 20 and just starting out, (1705) he walked 500 miles from Arnstadt to Lubeck and back to hear the 68 year old Dietrich Buxtehude play the organ. Buxtehude was well known among musicians, and they could read the scores, IF they could get ahold of them--which they might not. Once Bach got to Lubeck he decided to stay and soak up as much Buxtehude as he could (much to the annoyance of his employers in Arnstadt.) That's closer to pre-modern. — Bitter Crank

This is exactly the sort of idea I'm getting at here. Maybe yours is a better example. I think it's fascinating to read about these accounts and then compare it to our own experience of music; for instance, the fact that you threw in a simple youtube link at the end, as we all often do in discussions about art.

From the artist's point of view, I would think that producing excellent, "true" art (by the artist's judgement, at least) is still very difficult. I can't think of an artist who wasn't immersed in their own culture. How far would one have to go back to get away from other artists -- Lascaux? There would always be "other art" of some sort impinging on the artist's imagination.

Are you suggesting "true" art (which you say is still very difficult to create) would be art that is less immersed in the artists culture? And I was never arguing that there was a time where artists weren't immersed in their own cultural milieu or something like that.

Are you suggesting "true" art (which you say is still very difficult to create) would be art that is less immersed in the artists culture?

I put "true" in quotation marks because Mondrian used the word. I have no idea what "true" art would be. Well, a Chinese stroke for stroke copy of Mondrian, Rothko, or Rembrandt wouldn't be "true". It would be a real fake.

No, I am not suggesting that true art (whatever that is) would be more or less immersed in the artist's culture. It is just plain difficult for a serious artist (as opposed to a dilettante) to find his or her voice/vision/real self... and then express it so that he or she knows that what is on the canvas or score or page is what he or she intended to be there, and that there is a good chance that the viewer, hearer, or reader will receive the work as intended. Art is hard. Truly sublime art is harder.
— Noble Dust

And I was never arguing that there was a time where artists weren't immersed in their own cultural milieu or something like that. — Noble Dust

One thing that makes art more difficult these days is the investment habits of the 1%. Art sales have become a commodity speculation market. It has no affect on dead artists, of course, but warm, live artists can't avoid the cold hand of commerce. What dealers and auction houses (like Christies) are most concerned about is value. Specialists in the trading and gallery businesses do concern themselves with the quality of the art itself, but the businesses in which they work look at art the same way that investors look at stock, tons of copper, freezers of pork bellies, or boatloads of raw tuna. Buyers are buying art for more than just monetary reasons, certainly. many wealthy buyer will really relate to the works they buy. But some people are going to buy a work because they think it will appreciate steadily over the next 10 years.

(I have nothing to do with art sales, I just read about it in books written by usually appalled authors.)

Well, technically the "internet age" is only about 20 years, right? so some forum members could have experience prior to that. In any case, I was asking about your experience. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

The notion that "ubiquity" degrades appreciation is curious. I would think that abundance generally enhances or widens sensibilities.

I'm 70, and most of my life was lived in the darkness and savagery of the pre-Internet age. I am very, very, very glad that the Internet exists. I grew up in a backwater so I wasn't a consumer of "high culture" offered at institutions. I was a regular user of libraries, listener to 331/3 rpm records and radio, viewer of films on big screens in large theaters, and so on.

I think it is wonderful that I can access music, film, text, art, politics, news, porn, etc. on this remarkable system. No doubt, live music, live art, and real painted canvas beats the quality of what I see on the screen. But being able to call up a particular work and examine it beats hiking over to the library and hunting for a book with the picture in it. It beats having to take trips around the country to see real art hanging on museum walls. It beats spending $25 to $85 to hear a first rate orchestra playing 2 pieces by Beethoven and 1 by Sibelius.

Art is also information, and even if the aural fidelity is moderately good, even if the pixels per square inch are far less than the real thing, well... tough. Most of the information still comes through.

Even if that audience is only you. — Noble Dust

This is my audience, and all I care about is my experience as I continue to create and learn. The search for validation always pollutes the artistic experience.

Just as a kind of thought experiment, if you were the last person on earth and had a long life ahead of you, do you think that you would still have an impulse to create art? I don't think that I would.

Absolutely. I am basically doing that now. I create to express and learn, not to please or get validation. The two approaches are in opposition to each other. One has to choose.

I can see the impulse to do art in this circumstance as a means of self-exploration, now that I think about it. You use the word "express" however, and an expression needs an audience, does it not?

Expression is the act of revealing the inner creative self. I enjoy my art and it really doesn't matter to me if others do it don't.

Ok, but do you disagree that in general, people want their work to matter? Is it wrong for a professional artist to want their work to matter?

On my phone, will respond to everybody soon.

If it's only a means to reveal the inner creative self then after it's done that it should have no value if indeed that's all there is to it.

One learns.

If an artist decided that what they want to learn is how to please others, then that is what they will learn. Nothing wrong with that. That's what it takes to make money in any business. It is just different from self-expression.

Maybe it would be worth wild to explore the idea of what pleasing others means in this context.

You keep replacing "work matters" with "please others". They aren't the same. Again, I'm wondering, in general, do you think people want their work to matter? What I'm talking about is vocational fulfillement, if you will.

Maybe it would be worth wild to explore the idea of what pleasing others means in this context. — praxis

I spent my whole career doing this. Basically it is figuring v out what people want and v giving it to them - in my case confirming their views. It is an interesting skill, but nothing to do with artistic expression. More psychological in nature. Can't please everyone though, but some people try awfully hard.

Ok, no worries, sorry to misinterpret.

The notion that "ubiquity" degrades appreciation is curious. I would think that abundance generally enhances or widens sensibilities. — praxis

Well, I work in retail, and we have to play music in the shop for 8 hours every day, 5 days a week. My boss yells at me if i start the day off without putting anything on (because i just want some damn silence to sit with my thoughts and my coffee for awhile). But I'm a musical artist, and I hardly have the energy to go home and work on music after work because I'm already over-inundated with it. I know I'm not the only one, especially in the major city that I live in, filled with other musicians who are literally working themselves to death trying to make a living as a musician.

You keep replacing "work matters" with "please others". — Noble Dust

In practice, they become equivalent. It matters to someone if they like it, and you have to figure out what they like and please them. That's what salesmanship is all about.

I spoke to fairly successful artist last week as he explained to me how he chooses his latest color palette based upon what is in vogue. He knows how to sell.

So here's the book for you: PAINTING BY NUMBERS: KOMAR AND MELAMID SCIENTIFIC GUIDE TO ART.

Using consumer polls, sales and marketing information, various studies, and their own made- to-order-paintings", Kormar and Melamid set out to find what it is that various populations around the world really like. Most people like landscapes quite a bit, but whether children or animals -- and how many -- should be in the portrait varies somewhat. The amount of blue, green, red, yellow, etc. that people want varies too. Most people don't especially like a lot of orange in their above-the-couch art, and most people don't like abstract art. So, if you are painting orange abstracts, it is not surprising that people are recoiling in horror.

It's a fun read.

Something for every career artist to read. What people like matters when trying to develop a career in any profession.

Yes, indeedy. Here are two examples:

Liked a lot


Not liked much

As I already explained, missing the point (through overconsumption) is not what necessarily will happen. That's too simplistic. — Πετροκότσυφας

Hmmm, it could be too simplistic, but wouldn't the converse assumption also be too simplistic? Admittedly, we're making broad strokes here, and we're both giving examples, and I acknowledge it's a bit vague, but I'd say your examples are about the same. That's just an observation.

For example, what's also inherent in today's technology is the possibility of enhancing our experience of art*, the possibility of making it richer and more careful than it ever were, simply because we are now able to do things that were impossible without today's technology. But, that's also just a possibility, it does not mean that people will take advantage of this. — Πετροκότσυφας

I can't watch the videos as I'm at work, but the salient point here I think is that the technological means are just a neutral factor, and they always have been, back to the printing press, etc. To bring 's point into it, art is fundamentally an expression of the inner life of the person; it has a historically mystical character. The tools available for art have always remained tools, but the bell-curve-increasing complexity of tech, combined with a world view that sees tech as inherently positive rather than neutral, is, I think, what leads to the ubiquity of art being a detriment to art appreciation. Hope that makes sense.

What will lead one to embrace this possibility or be lost in superficiality, is a combination of social relations, which are structured in a capitalistic way so they tend to strongly favour consumerism for the sake of consumerism, and our personal idiosyncrasies. — Πετροκότσυφας

I agree.

Is your concern in any way linked to Benjamin's concept of "aura"? — Πετροκότσυφας

I'm not familiar.

I put "true" in quotation marks because Mondrian used the word. I have no idea what "true" art would be — Noble Dust

He also said "Art has shown that universal expression can only be created by a real equation of the universal and the individual." :P

http://theoria.art-zoo.com/plastic-art-and-pure-plastic-art-mondrian/

It is just plain difficult for a serious artist (as opposed to a dilettante) to find his or her voice/vision/real self... and then express it so that he or she knows that what is on the canvas or score or page is what he or she intended to be there, and that there is a good chance that the viewer, hearer, or reader will receive the work as intended. Art is hard. Truly sublime art is harder. — Noble Dust

It's just work. That also connects to what I'm trying to communicate to . It's possible to make great work, it just takes work. And you can't control how the audience receives your art, I made an entire thread about that too. That's why focusing on the work in front of you is paramount, and that's why feeling that your work matters in a larger way doesn't equal giving the audience what they expected, or delivering it to them as you intended.

One thing that makes art more difficult these days is the investment habits of the 1%. — Bitter Crank

Yes, it's a racket.

In practice, they become equivalent. It matters to someone if they like it, and you have to figure out what they like and please them. That's what salesmanship is all about. — Rich

Well, they're certainly connected, but how do they become equivalent? What line of work made this your life's work btw? (edit: did you mean sales?)

With regards to art, Duchamp ushered in a whole age of art that didn't particularly please audiences. I think this revealed something pretty telling; I think the relationship is more complex than you're suggesting. How art functions in society hasn't remained a constant; I'm sure everyone here knows their art history.