Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Culture Forum

Culture Forum

  1. Standard member StTito
    The Mullverine
    24 Apr '09 22:51
    As an artist given the option between these two scenarios what would you pick?
    1- You could create one piece of great work at a young age that would be wildly popular and give you enough money to live high on the hog for the rest of your life... but you would never create anything of artistic or popular value for the rest of that wealthy life.
    OR
    2- Be an artist who is short on money but knows in his/her heart that each artistic endeavor is better than the last, even if it is not popularly accepted AND continuing to create these progressively better pieces till the day you die.
    Discuss...
  2. 24 Apr '09 23:18
    Originally posted by StTito
    As an artist given the option between these two scenarios what would you pick?
    1- You could create one piece of great work at a young age that would be wildly popular and give you enough money to live high on the hog for the rest of your life... but you would never create anything of artistic or popular value for the rest of that wealthy life.
    OR
    2- Be an ...[text shortened]... ted AND continuing to create these progressively better pieces till the day you die.
    Discuss...
    I would choose the second, and invite all true artists to follow.
  3. 27 Apr '09 08:19
    Originally posted by StTito
    As an artist given the option between these two scenarios what would you pick?
    1- You could create one piece of great work at a young age that would be wildly popular and give you enough money to live high on the hog for the rest of your life... but you would never create anything of artistic or popular value for the rest of that wealthy life.
    OR
    2- Be an ...[text shortened]... ted AND continuing to create these progressively better pieces till the day you die.
    Discuss...
    Definitely the second. The act of creating itself is much more rewarding than fame or wealth.
  4. Subscriber AttilaTheHorn
    Erro Ergo Sum
    27 Apr '09 08:47
    Originally posted by Nordlys
    Definitely the second. The act of creating itself is much more rewarding than fame or wealth.
    Absolutely. I'd choose the second too, for the same reason. As a musician, I've spent my whole like explaining to others that the music comes first. It drives everything. I no longer try to explain; I just go ahead and do it.
  5. Standard member PBE6
    Bananarama
    27 Apr '09 19:40
    Originally posted by StTito
    As an artist given the option between these two scenarios what would you pick?
    1- You could create one piece of great work at a young age that would be wildly popular and give you enough money to live high on the hog for the rest of your life... but you would never create anything of artistic or popular value for the rest of that wealthy life.
    OR
    2- Be an ...[text shortened]... ted AND continuing to create these progressively better pieces till the day you die.
    Discuss...
    The question seems a little biased toward #2. Which of the following would you pick?

    1- Achieve the pinnacle of artistic achievement at a young age with a piece of work that becomes wildly popular both critically and commercially, cementing your place in history as a great artist while securing financial freedom for life.

    2- Strive all your life to create great art, but fail each and every time, eventually dying penniless and unrecognized.
  6. 27 Apr '09 20:21 / 1 edit
    WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE ALL ABOUT? who are you trying to prove to that you are made of Gold and cant be sold? No.1 for me, anytime.

    there is a relatively famous Glaswegian artist that i used to work for, she was working on a piece of 'art', when i asked her why she choose this particular genre, she stated that she was sick fed up of being poor and needed an income, thus she painted what sold. was it banal? was it artistic sacrilege? probably most definitely, but so is much of what passes for art anyway is just that. My goodness they build huge cranes on the Clyde, some nutter comes along, takes a few photographs and suddenly its artistic, its nonsense.

    Jack Vitriani paints the most crappy pictures imaginable, those rubbishy romantic images that I am convinced appeal only to women, but they sell, and im glad they sell, for he has confounded the snobbery and the whole art establishment, those slapheads in the School of Art, 'oh there no such thing as the correct answer, only the correct questions', one lecturer stated to me, GARBAGE I THOUGHT! if there are no correct answers then why are we searching for solutions, and these are the idiots from whom we should learn?

    If you can sell it sell it, no qualms!
  7. Standard member StTito
    The Mullverine
    27 Apr '09 20:45
    Originally posted by PBE6
    The question seems a little biased toward #2. Which of the following would you pick?

    1- Achieve the pinnacle of artistic achievement at a young age with a piece of work that becomes wildly popular both critically and commercially, cementing your place in history as a great artist while securing financial freedom for life.

    2- Strive all your life to create great art, but fail each and every time, eventually dying penniless and unrecognized.
    I agree it is a bit biased and knowing what I know now as a 30somthing struggling artist I would probably pick even my #1, but it is still a tough sell since I am pretty happy(yet poor). Your comment made me want to add a third option though.

    3- Strive all your life to create great art, but fail each and every time, eventually dying penniless and unrecognized. And then become discovered and your art is recongnized and your name lives in infamy.
  8. Standard member PBE6
    Bananarama
    27 Apr '09 20:57
    Originally posted by StTito
    I agree it is a bit biased and knowing what I know now as a 30somthing struggling artist I would probably pick even my #1, but it is still a tough sell since I am pretty happy(yet poor). Your comment made me want to add a third option though.

    3- Strive all your life to create great art, but fail each and every time, eventually dying penniless and unrecognized. And then become discovered and your art is recongnized and your name lives in infamy.
    And then become discovered and your art is recongnized and your name lives in infamy.

    What are we doing, smashing live rats across a canvass?!? Heheh...

    I think being happy is the most important thing, and most people don't need much in the way of monetary gain to achieve it. They are more than happy creating art they love, and I think that's great. I don't look down on those that use their talents in more commercial pursuits though, why is it shameful to make a living doing something you're good at? Real talent is irrepressible, too, and it's only a matter of time before it shines through in even the most shameless of shill operations (or the artist makes their own path).
  9. 27 Apr '09 21:57
    Originally posted by Nordlys
    Definitely the second. The act of creating itself is much more rewarding than fame or wealth.
    Should not an artist's choice be influenced by the nature of
    one's art and one's circumstances? Some artists (such as writers,
    composers, and painters) who are unrecognised during their lives
    can hope that their works will be first appreciated after their deaths.
    Some artists (performers) cannot hope for such posthumous glory.

    'No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money.'
    --Samuel Johnson

    I would have more respect for a writer who expressed what one
    really believed than for a writer "who sold one's soul" in order to
    produce well-paid propaganda. A writer may not be valued in
    one's own time or in one's own society, but such a writer can still
    ultimately attain a kind of immortality through one's creations.

    "I'm always conscious of the fact that I am part of a profession
    that is 80% permanently unemployed. So, to be working in any
    sense is to be privileged."
    --Derek Jacobi

    But if an actor's talent not recognised, then one usually remains
    unemployed, without the opportunities to pursue one's art and
    to create anything memorable for an audience. So the usual
    advice given to aspiring actors is: 'Begin by accepting every
    opportunity that you are offered.' Having talent often is not
    enough for success, apart from the reality that an actor's usually
    competing against many others with as much talent and hunger.

    Let's suppose there's an actor with the classical acting skills of,
    say, Laurence Olivier. Unfortunately (in terms of his career),
    he happens to look East Asian. While there's nothing wrong with
    looking East Asian, it would make him extremely difficult to cast
    in Western professional acting. A casting director might tell him:
    "I don't care at all that you can perform Shakespeare brilliantly.
    Can you perform any martial arts? That's all I need from you."
    If this actor were to accept a small role in a television series,
    playing a rather demeaning racial stereotype (which he dislikes),
    simply to get some money to support his family, then I would
    not necessarily criticize him. Sometimes even extraordinary
    talent and determination cannot overcome lasting prejudice.
    And prejudice's far from being in any danger of extinction.

    My general point is that artists, like other people, often do
    what they believe they must do, not what they yearn to do.
  10. Standard member rbmorris
    Vampyroteuthis
    27 Apr '09 22:52
    Originally posted by StTito
    As an artist given the option between these two scenarios what would you pick?
    1- You could create one piece of great work at a young age that would be wildly popular and give you enough money to live high on the hog for the rest of your life... but you would never create anything of artistic or popular value for the rest of that wealthy life.
    OR
    2- Be an ...[text shortened]... ted AND continuing to create these progressively better pieces till the day you die.
    Discuss...
    My first reaction is #2. However...

    1- You could create one piece of great work at a young age that would be wildly popular and give you enough money to live high on the hog for the rest of your life... but you would never create anything of artistic or popular value for the rest of that wealthy life.

    It seems that if you created one great piece, you must have some talent. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that nothing you created after that could have any artistic value. You could still create, improve and enjoy your art (even if nobody else did) and be financially comfortable and free to explore your medium. Also, it's entirely possible that because of that one piece you created early on, you had an influence on the art of others. And, since you created something of artistic value, there is the possibility that future generations may look back on your subsequent works and gain new appreciation for them. Finally, since your early work gave you financial independence, you could be more experimental in your later works. Even if none of these experimental pieces have any commercial value, they could be significantly more rewarding on a personal level.

    Having created something great in the past, you'll always know that you have that spark inside you, and maintain hope that it comes out again.

    2- Be an artist who is short on money but knows in his/her heart that each artistic endeavor is better than the last, even if it is not popularly accepted AND continuing to create these progressively better pieces till the day you die.

    Personally, I'd like some recognition for my work. It doesn't have to be some kind of widespread, mainstream popularity, but I'd find it very frustrating if nobody liked my work. After a while, I think most people would begin to question their talent.

    It's not about large sums of money or popularity. Given the choice, I'm sure most of us would choose Van Gogh's legacy over Thomas Kinkade's wealth and fame.

    As an artist, I think you'd hope to churn out at least one "masterpiece"--one piece that represents (for you, anyway) the culmination of your talents and efforts. For some, that might be enough. That's not to say that you'd stop creating after that, but at least you could die knowing you'd left your mark--shown the world, even for one brief moment, everything that's inside you.
  11. 27 Apr '09 23:32 / 1 edit
    what did Warhol realize? that art was a commodity! are we to censure and chastise him for this? are his works to be considered unartistic because of this? never may that be so? was it a knew revelation, absolutely not ! Titian was catering for the same types of people way back in the renaissance, those trying to buy a stairway to heaven by commissioning artistic works! Is it an adulteration? I would like someone to help me to resolve this in my own mind, for as yet, it remains hazy and ill defined.
  12. 28 Apr '09 00:24
    Originally posted by AttilaTheHorn
    Absolutely. I'd choose the second too, for the same reason. As a musician, I've spent my whole like explaining to others that the music comes first. It drives everything. I no longer try to explain; I just go ahead and do it.
    Days can be sunny with never a sigh,
    Don't need what money can buy.
    Birds in the tree sing their dayful of song,
    Why shouldn't we sing along?
    I'm chipper all the day, happy with my lot.
    How did I get that way? Look at what I've got!
    I got rhythm, I got music, I got my man--
    Who could ask for anything more?
    --George & Ira Gershwin (from 'Girl Crazy'
  13. Standard member StTito
    The Mullverine
    28 Apr '09 00:30
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    what did Warhol realize? that art was a commodity! are we to censure and chastise him for this? are his works to be considered unartistic because of this? never may that be so? was it a knew revelation, absolutely not ! Titian was catering for the same types of people way back in the renaissance, those trying to buy a stairway to heaven by commi ...[text shortened]... someone to help me to resolve this in my own mind, for as yet, it remains hazy and ill defined.
    I think this would go back to our discussion of what is art is. But from your last few posts I think you have a pretty good hold on the situation.Money can taint art but hell, If my total artistic contribution was the song "louie louie" I would be happy(assuming I had exclusive rights to the song).
    BTW I am now working on this little ditty called Kablooy kablooy. I have high hopes.
  14. 28 Apr '09 00:38
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE ALL ABOUT? who are you trying to prove to that you are made of Gold and cant be sold? No.1 for me, anytime.

    there is a relatively famous Glaswegian artist that i used to work for, she was working on a piece of 'art', when i asked her why she choose this particular genre, she stated that she was sick fed up of being poor and ne ...[text shortened]... nd these are the idiots from whom we should learn?

    If you can sell it sell it, no qualms!
    Most writers in this thread seem to have a romantic conception of the
    artist as an individual hero, struggling against one's environment.
    On the other hand, a Marxist might contend that an artist is hardly
    more than a product, however well-refined, that springs from the
    influences of one's economic, political, and social environment.
    So to what extent could an artist's freedom be just an illusion?

    You wrote: 'If you can sell it, sell it, no qualms!'

    By every known critical standard, Hitler was a mediocre artist at best.
    But there's substantial demand in the marketplace for artistic works
    by Hitler. Should there be any moral reservations about buying or
    selling Hitler's art?
  15. 28 Apr '09 02:57
    Originally posted by StTito
    I think this would go back to our discussion of what is art is. But from your last few posts I think you have a pretty good hold on the situation.Money can taint art but hell, If my total artistic contribution was the song "louie louie" I would be happy(assuming I had exclusive rights to the song).
    BTW I am now working on this little ditty called Kablooy kablooy. I have high hopes.
    I don't know, there seems to me, this almost utopian idea that art should be above money, that the ideals envisioned and encapsulated in the artistic work are more worthy than mere dosh! and undoubtedly in many cases they are, one can imagine Beethoven thrashing out some virtuosic piece in defiant indignation of the Bavarian princes, who although they had all the dosh, were mere mortals compared to the talented musician, but even Beethoven had to go home some time!

    I love that song and wish you every success!