I was a consultant.

Once you begin mixing art, with audience, with money, it becomes something else. Some mashing of lots of things. I keep my art simple. I create and I learn. For me it is the same with all of my pursuits. I don't do it for others, I do it for myself.

If I want to make money by pleasing others, that is what I do. At this point, I am no longer doing that. Even with Tai Chi, I only teach it for free. No pollution.

*Takes a look at his computer wallpaper* :

It's not that simple, in my opinion. Consider the possibility that the value of art or how we experience it is a social construct. If that's the case then just about anything could be perceived as art, and also the value of it could vary wildly.

Rather than catering to the concepts of beauty or art that a society may have, an artist could create new concepts, in affect changing, or rather adding, new sources of artistic value. As I see it that's what this topic is about, but rather than technology, abundance, or globalization being the irritant for the aspiring artist, it's simply that all the low lying fruit has been picked, so to speak. Major movements in art like realism, impressionism, abstract art, etc., to speak only of painting, have all been done, so it's more difficult to be original or to create new concepts. But then maybe it isn't actually more difficult than it was in days gone by. That might only be our perception.


Andy Warhol's 200 One Dollar Bills sold at Sotheby's in 2009 for $43.8 million.

Major movements in art like realism, impressionism, abstract art, etc., to speak only of painting, have all been done, so it's more difficult to be original or to create new concepts. — praxis

I agree to an extent, but again, I think it's even more complex than what you're saying. A large part of why there is such a large and ever-increasing proliferation of new movements and styles and genres (just think of the endless subgenres in music) is because of technology, and not only technology, but it's relation to consumerism and a capitalistic, globalized economy. And this is exactly what prevents a new movement to really take hold. Art becomes more and more disposable the more these socio-economic factors (driven largely by the tech industry) put pressure on art industries. Like I said earlier, the function of art in society is always in flux, and an increasing technocratic society doesn't have much room for art.

I'm thinking that two major factors are the pace of innovation, which is clearly vastly accelerated, and what I'll call the increased granularity of our artistic sensibilities. What I mean by granularity is basically more concepts made out of our raw experience. I don't see why an increase in these factors would prevent the development of a new concepts.

And as I mentioned earlier, I believe the increased granularity of our sensibilities leads to greater appreciation. Range is not that same as quantity. MacDonald's is an expression of increased efficiency, predicability, and caters to base impulses because it's motivated by the singular goal of creating capital. But there's no reason I can see that McDonaldization constrains art or new movements in art.

What I mean by granularity is basically more concepts made out of our raw experience. I don't see why an increase in these factors would prevent the development of a new concepts. — praxis

What I was saying is that the socio-economic pressure on art industries changes how the value of art is perceived, which means it doesn't play the same role in society that it used to. After the World Wars, for instance, there was this massive, sort of tragic collective sigh which manifested in post-modern art, atonal, music, etc.

And as I mentioned earlier, I believe the increased granularity of our sensibilities leads to greater appreciation. — praxis

It might lead to greater appreciation in the sense of a more nuanced appreciation, but it seems that most people still place high importance on whatever first pieces of music or artworks first got them excited about a given medium. Another consequence of that granularity is that it gets increasingly harder to be impressed by a given artwork the more you know about the medium, genre, etc. Music criticism is a perfect example of that. The joy of discovery is hard to maintain.

What I was saying is that the socio-economic pressure on art industries changes how the value of art is perceived, which means it doesn't play the same role in society that it used to. After the World Wars, for instance, there was this massive, sort of tragic collective sigh which manifested in post-modern art, atonal, music, etc. — Noble Dust

This is awfully ambiguous, and that's fine if you chose not to elaborate.

It [increased sensibilities] might lead to greater appreciation in the sense of a more nuanced appreciation, but it seems that most people still place high importance on whatever first pieces of music or artworks first got them excited about a given medium. — Noble Dust

We're limited to some degree by our predispositions, sure.

Another consequence of that granularity is that it gets increasingly harder to be impressed by a given artwork the more you know about the medium, genre, etc. Music criticism is a perfect example of that. The joy of discovery is hard to maintain. — Noble Dust

I strongly disagree. In personal experience, I've done a fair amount of plein air painting and know a lot about the medium and particular challenges of the genre. Nevertheless a California impressionist masterpiece can take my breath away, and I think that's particularly the case because I can more fully recognize the mastery. If a layman found a California impressionist painting in a garage sale they may well not think it very good.

I guess what i mean is that as your tastes refine, you become pickier. For myself, it's harder and harder to enjoy generic indie bands that have a nice "sound", the more I explore my own musical voice, and the more I experiment and listen to more experimental music. So maybe we don't disagree there; I agree with your above post.

I disagree; it's natural to want to share art. The audience is something like 50% of the work, in my estimation. Artists like myself who are or are pursuing art as a full-time vocation need the same sort of validation that their work is meaningful as anyone else in any other field. — Noble Dust

I have to agree with Rich and say that art is about self-expression. I write, for example, in order to know what I think, and paint in order to know what I see. It is a way of amplifying, cultivating and developing experience; it is a discipline and the artist is a disciple. I don't believe the primordial relationship of the artist to their work has really changed through history. (This is not to deny that forms of art are culturally mediated and evolve along with societies). The problem is that if one wants to pursue an art full-time you need to be able to make a living by doing it. or be prepared to endure poverty. So the problem is not a psychological need for validation by means of recognition, but a practical need for remuneration via the fact of recognition.

For instance, poetry is sometimes considered the highest of all art forms, but even the most universally acclaimed poets cannot make a living at it, because there is not a high degree of general interest in reading poetry. Anthologies of poetry are unlikely to be best-sellers. So, if your circle of admirers is necessarily small, validation will always be self-validation, insofar as it only means anything to you if you validate the validators by believing in their intelligence, wisdom and authority as validators. It becomes a cult of the like-minded, inevitably.

I like orange, myself. And with the somewhat faint image of Phoebus Apollo (sun god) being pulled across the sky on his daily journey, yellow/orange/red/brown makes sense.

It's a bit too bright for computer wallpaper--too distracting. As an over-the-sofa painting against a grayish green wall, about the size of a dishwasher front turned sideways, I think it would look fine. Great art? No, definitely not. Phoebus Apollo is too close to being a cartoon. Something a little more compelling, something less literal...

It's actually Elijah, by Nicholas Roerich. He has his own museum in NYC. I visited and had the place to myself. I saw that one last, as it was on the top floor. I like the imperfection of how it's composed and how annoying the colors are.

I have to agree with Rich and say that art is about self-expression. — Janus

I really have to say I continue to disagree with this. Reference my comments to you in the beauty thread. I have no problem with folks like you and Rich who make art for themselves and don't care about having an audience, but that's different than a selfish artist in search of, or in possession of, an audience. I've seen plenty of that in my short life thus far from working in various aspects of the music business. Additionally, self-expression is just one aspect to art. John Baldessari said "You have to be possessed (which you can't will)." The idea of artistic inspiration has a bad rap, but I can personally attest to the truth of Baldessari's idea, and there's really no other way to address whether some sort of unique inspiration happens than through one's own experience. Philosophically, it's pretty much untenable to assert that an outside force of inspiration exists in some artists. But this is an anonymous forum, so I'll just say it: it exists, and I'm one of those artists. I really lack the philosophical chops to try to express what i'm trying to say in any other way. I just know from experience that there's something more to art than self-expression. I don't only express myself when I make music. There's something else at work. So, briefly, the fact that this outside force of inspiration exists means that art doesn't just express the self; it's an (almost always failed) attempt at what Mondrian calls "a real equation of the individual and the universal", and what Berdyaev said is an always failed attempt of the divine aspect of man to "create new being".

As I understand it authentic (as opposed to indulgent) self-expression just is inspiration; Part of the discipline of any art form consists in learning to recognize one's self-indulgence and relinquish it, to enable inspiration to take place. I don't see any dichotomy or even inconsistency between the two notions.However I certainly don't think of it as an "outside force"; I have no idea what that could even mean.

As I understand it authentic (as opposed to indulgent) self-expression just is inspiration; Part of the discipline of any art form consists in learning to recognize one's self-indulgence and relinquish it, to enable inspiration to take place. I don't see any dichotomy or even inconsistency between the two notions. — Janus

I'm not sure, then, what you mean with that distinction, since you don't see any dichotomy. Unless I'm misunderstanding.

However I certainly don't think of it as an "outside force"; I have no idea what that could even mean. — Janus

Fair enough, of course. Like I said, my comments on that topic exede the bounds of a philosophy forum.

I'm not sure, then, what you mean with that distinction, since you don't see any dichotomy. Unless I'm misunderstanding. — Noble Dust

Are you referring to the distinction between inauthentic (indulgent) and authentic self-expression? Regarding that I say that our works (and our lives) are all a mixture of both.

I think that it devalues art, and makes it more ordinary. It takes away the magic from art.

What relation does the ubiquity of art in the modern world have with it's perceived value? Does great art have a real value underneath the socially constructed one, or has "great" art literally become worthless in a globalized world? — Noble Dust

As I am, possibly, one with Bergson, I'd like art to tell me what it is out there. An artist has succeeded in his endeavor if the audience experiences some sort of discovery, a feeling of awe, or an agreement with what's being conveyed. It is perhaps a travesty to be always two clicks away from an opus or a masterpiece -- I thought art should encourage meditation or understanding of the universal.

Philosophically, it's pretty much untenable to assert that an outside force of inspiration exists in some artists. But this is an anonymous forum, so I'll just say it: it exists, and I'm one of those artists. I really lack the philosophical chops to try to express what i'm trying to say in any other way. I just know from experience that there's something more to art than self-expression. I don't only express myself when I make music. There's something else at work. So, briefly, the fact that this outside force of inspiration exists means that art doesn't just express the self; it's an (almost always failed) attempt at what Mondrian calls "a real equation of the individual and the universal", and what Berdyaev said is an always failed attempt of the divine aspect of man to "create new being". — Noble Dust

I am always fascinated when people report this. We have all read accounts of "muses" or of the work (art, writing, music) just poring out. I wonder if you would be willing to attribute this to the "intelligence" of the subconscious (as the subconscious often behaves in very rational ways and solves problems for us without our directed attention). Of course you can always attribute it to some universal mind or intelligence but I wonder if you entertain both possibilities.

I'm kind of embarrassed that I posted that back then, but I'll give it a shot.

I wonder if you would be willing to attribute this to the "intelligence" of the subconscious (as the subconscious often behaves in very rational ways and solves problems for us without our directed attention). — prothero

I'm fine with that interpretation, as long as it's not considered a dogmatic, metaphysically exclusive and exhaustive explanation. What exactly is the intelligence of the subconscious? Those waters are way too murky to automatically assume a materialistic position in which the theory that suggests the subconscious as the "answer" to the phenomenon lays all metaphysical doubts to rest. A psychological explanation could serve as an expression of the singular reality of what's happening. A mystical explanation, for instance, could also serve as an expression of that singular reality. I see no reason to assume one being primary or "more real" over the other, aside from pure assumption and personal metaphysical bias.

I've been reading about the Christian mystics, and the Kabbalah as well recently. The experiences they had sound like the creative process to me. Pretty simple, really.