07 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Tabitha MarshallWeird people make better everything.
Generally speaking, I tend to agree to the headline below, maybe out of personal experience and some historical background of great artists who were utterly crazy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/10622344/Do-weird-people-make-better-artists.html
Normal people are just filler on this planet.
PS - Kilmt looks like such a hobo in that photo.
08 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Tabitha MarshallGood question... darvlay's emphasis on everything, suggests "purely artistic people".
Would that percentage correlate with purely artistic people? You know, the kind that cannot do anything else in life but create, whatever medium it may be.
Originally posted by darvlay
Weird people make better everything.
Normal people are just filler on this planet.
PS - Kilmt looks like such a hobo in that photo.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
09 Feb 14
Originally posted by Tabitha MarshallAs suggested at the end of the article, when it comes to creators of transgressive art, the weirdest creators of such works may be the ones whose own persona is not transgressive. A few are mentioned.
Generally speaking, I tend to agree to the headline below, maybe out of personal experience and some historical background of great artists who were utterly crazy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/10622344/Do-weird-people-make-better-artists.html
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWith respect, GB..
.... "judgments" of/"performed" for the "normal" people?
They perform as an individuals, usually solo, alone, not in front of others... and that by definition is not 'perfomance', but merely a personal act.
Who ever cares to judge afterwards is up to them. For example, Degas didn't perfom his creatings of apres le bain, or ballet dancers, neither for others nor in their view when doing so (neither did Michaelangelo {Sistine}, etc.. He did it to fulfil his own expression at his time, in his time. He liked to have responses, and judgement of his work, as doesn't everybody, but it wasn't a need. Expression had been made, or performed. This differs from musical expression, which usually warrants or desires momentary feed back - for approval!
Degas or Michaelangelo were normal, or abnormal, is neither here nor there. Thus, judgments about alternative performances are relevant to time only. If one judges a piece of art, does that make one abnormal, when trying to consider or evaluate another person's intent in his time? Trying to evaluate art is not discussive, as it is as personal as much as who believes a wife is beautiful, or not, by others. Is it not?
-m