Sigmund Freud is very explicit in his interpretation of the creative process.
Freud says that all creative works stem from the yearning to reclaim the idyllic joy and comfort and security that most of us experienced as children. For instance, he says that all creativity starts with an experience. This experience reminds us, subconsciously, of a similar experience had as a child. This reminder makes us long for the feeling produced by the experience, and so we create art that seeks to satisfy this latent, precognitive urge.
He also says that daydreaming is a "continuation of and substitute for the play of childhood."
I's got some beef here.
I dabble in the arts from time to time. When I write lyrics to a song, it is usually in response to a feeling I have just felt, not one I felt 18 years ago. When I write a catchy musical hook or chord progression, it is usually a response to outside musical stimuli, mixed with my own interpretation, mixed with spontaneous riffing. I'm pretty sure the feeling of a fresh diaper didn't inspire that bluesy walking bass line.
Again, Freud was all about the backbrain, hypocognition and whathaveyou, so I may very well be blowing smoke up my own ass, but I am curious to see what you guys think. Do these acts stem from childhood experiences? Am I seeking some type of puerile respite in my creativity? What about Aditi's doodling theory? Do mindless illustrations offer us a glimpse at our unspoken, unthought yens?
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Response to Aurora's QUICKBLOG!
I'm responding to the second bit of your post, the one questioning the arthood of works akin to Shel Silverstein's.
A graphic artist who spends something like 3 hours on one corner of an illustrated house, getting the shading just so, would probably rule out Shel's drawings as art. Along this same line, Lord Byron would have likely laughed in his face, had Mr. Silverstein somehow discovered the secret to time travel and brought with him "A Light In The Attic."
This being said, I believe that Silverstein's simplicity lends itself to the medium. He is writing predominantly for young people, though there is certainly a richness passed over by children that can be appreciate when read at an older age. I see Silverstein as a modern day, sardonic, witty Aesop. His poetry, if I may classify his work as such, is moralistic, and his illustrations and voice are earty, folky, and to the point.
A laudable five-minute blog, to be sure, Miss Cooper. I say yes! absolutely Shel Silverstein and his kith are artists.
If a snot came up to you and tried to disprove artists like Shel Silverstein, what would you say? What are the main points with which you would refute the snot's arguments?
A graphic artist who spends something like 3 hours on one corner of an illustrated house, getting the shading just so, would probably rule out Shel's drawings as art. Along this same line, Lord Byron would have likely laughed in his face, had Mr. Silverstein somehow discovered the secret to time travel and brought with him "A Light In The Attic."
This being said, I believe that Silverstein's simplicity lends itself to the medium. He is writing predominantly for young people, though there is certainly a richness passed over by children that can be appreciate when read at an older age. I see Silverstein as a modern day, sardonic, witty Aesop. His poetry, if I may classify his work as such, is moralistic, and his illustrations and voice are earty, folky, and to the point.
A laudable five-minute blog, to be sure, Miss Cooper. I say yes! absolutely Shel Silverstein and his kith are artists.
If a snot came up to you and tried to disprove artists like Shel Silverstein, what would you say? What are the main points with which you would refute the snot's arguments?
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Art's Malleability
we discussed on wednesday morning the possibility that artists may create art dualistic in its emotional nature. that is, the artist may have fully intended one group of people to respond with one emotion, another to respond with a different emotion, and a third to perhaps respond indifferently. does this dualistic nature conflict with art's "artness"?
tolstoy claims that art is art when it successfully communicates a felt emotion on the behalf of the artist to the viewer (-forgive me if this definition is vague or inaccurate, i attempted to summarize a brilliant mind's view of art in a sentence). if the artist intends happiness to be communicated via a picture of a romping pup, but the viewer of the art just lost a pup very much like the one in the art, is the art still art? does it depend on if the majority of the viewers feel the emotion the artist meant to be felt, or is it case specific? the art is not art to the person whose pup was lost, but is to everyone who was accurately communicated to?
what about a portrayal of a battlefield whose fight recently agated, the soldiers of which we'll say for the sake of argument hail new zealand and australia. one side clearly lost. the artist is an NZer. is it still art to the aussies?
i postulate that, as long as the artist created the piece feeling SOME type of emotion, and the viewer perceives the art with SOME type of emotion attached, then the piece is art.
then again, i don't exactly get riled up looking at a flower vase, but the sculptor certainly poured intention and emotion both into the piece. hmm...
tolstoy claims that art is art when it successfully communicates a felt emotion on the behalf of the artist to the viewer (-forgive me if this definition is vague or inaccurate, i attempted to summarize a brilliant mind's view of art in a sentence). if the artist intends happiness to be communicated via a picture of a romping pup, but the viewer of the art just lost a pup very much like the one in the art, is the art still art? does it depend on if the majority of the viewers feel the emotion the artist meant to be felt, or is it case specific? the art is not art to the person whose pup was lost, but is to everyone who was accurately communicated to?
what about a portrayal of a battlefield whose fight recently agated, the soldiers of which we'll say for the sake of argument hail new zealand and australia. one side clearly lost. the artist is an NZer. is it still art to the aussies?
i postulate that, as long as the artist created the piece feeling SOME type of emotion, and the viewer perceives the art with SOME type of emotion attached, then the piece is art.
then again, i don't exactly get riled up looking at a flower vase, but the sculptor certainly poured intention and emotion both into the piece. hmm...
Response to Aditi's "purpose"
When you're subconcious creates (mindless doodling, etc) is this art? The obvious answer would be yes, but think about it. Is doodling really "art" by the definition we concluded? Is it just boredom? And is boredom something that adds intention to our doodles?
Very tricky question, Aditi. If we are prescribing to the intentionality theory of art, then no, because there is no intention behind mindless doodling other than to distract you from a boring lecturer, an inane film clip, an monotonous bus ride, et cetera.
What if somebody sees your mindless doodle, though, and is moved to tears? Clearly some emotion was transmitted, despite the fact that your half of the transmission may have been unintentional.
Boredom does not add intention to our doodles. If you really wanna be picky, there is SOME intention behind your doodles, as you intended to take up time and space, to occupy your face for 10 minutes. So, maybe how you deal with boredom is intentional? Whichever the answer, you did not intend to create art, you intended to kill time. I think that means no, doodling is not art, at least insofar as we have defined art.
Jackson Pollock unintentionally discovered the method of painting for which he was most famous for. Jimi Hendrix undoubtedly acid-riffed at least one, and most likely several, of his most famous songs, and drug-induced riffing is comparable to boredom-induced doodling.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Very tricky question, Aditi. If we are prescribing to the intentionality theory of art, then no, because there is no intention behind mindless doodling other than to distract you from a boring lecturer, an inane film clip, an monotonous bus ride, et cetera.
What if somebody sees your mindless doodle, though, and is moved to tears? Clearly some emotion was transmitted, despite the fact that your half of the transmission may have been unintentional.
Boredom does not add intention to our doodles. If you really wanna be picky, there is SOME intention behind your doodles, as you intended to take up time and space, to occupy your face for 10 minutes. So, maybe how you deal with boredom is intentional? Whichever the answer, you did not intend to create art, you intended to kill time. I think that means no, doodling is not art, at least insofar as we have defined art.
Jackson Pollock unintentionally discovered the method of painting for which he was most famous for. Jimi Hendrix undoubtedly acid-riffed at least one, and most likely several, of his most famous songs, and drug-induced riffing is comparable to boredom-induced doodling.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
response to aurora's response to shawna's "utopian society"
"where would art fit in a utopian society?"
in a utopian society, there is no dissent, no unhappiness, no societal "rust" in the "gears."
i myself am an artist, as i'm sure many of you are. i happen to be a musician, which is the least frowned-upon form or artistic expression in Plato's republic, but still, my craft would be hindered. i can say for certain that if i were repressed in my craft, i would absolutely speak out. marx and engels, in their communist manifesto, stated as a need of our species the opportunity to express ourselves artistically, among other things. if we are denied these needs, things get hairy.
inherently, we are a creative species, and if those among us who have that need to create are denied the opportunity to do so, i absolutely think there would be some type of artistic revolution, unless there existed some type of widely available, socially acceptable tranquilizer, such as soma in aldous huxley's "brave new world."
in george orwell's "the time machine," society physically splits into two different classes - by this, i mean they physiologically evolve into two different races. the above ground race is a brainless, androgynous species that subsists on fruit, mystically supplied goods, orgiastic sexual encounters, and population control. the below-grounders are hideous, industrial, and predatory on the previously mentioned above-grounders.
without one of these aforementioned systems of existence (chemical dependence, population control, et cetera) i propose that plato's republic would fail. there are simply too many artists.
can you think of a way whereby artists would not be driven insane, other than the scenarios i've offered above? is it even a feasible possibility? what is it exactly that plato despises about artistic expression? whether you believe in jesus or darwin, we are copies of some greater form (dna or jesus himself). why is it so wrong for us, facsimilies ourselves, to use and embrace imitations in our daily lives?
in a utopian society, there is no dissent, no unhappiness, no societal "rust" in the "gears."
i myself am an artist, as i'm sure many of you are. i happen to be a musician, which is the least frowned-upon form or artistic expression in Plato's republic, but still, my craft would be hindered. i can say for certain that if i were repressed in my craft, i would absolutely speak out. marx and engels, in their communist manifesto, stated as a need of our species the opportunity to express ourselves artistically, among other things. if we are denied these needs, things get hairy.
inherently, we are a creative species, and if those among us who have that need to create are denied the opportunity to do so, i absolutely think there would be some type of artistic revolution, unless there existed some type of widely available, socially acceptable tranquilizer, such as soma in aldous huxley's "brave new world."
in george orwell's "the time machine," society physically splits into two different classes - by this, i mean they physiologically evolve into two different races. the above ground race is a brainless, androgynous species that subsists on fruit, mystically supplied goods, orgiastic sexual encounters, and population control. the below-grounders are hideous, industrial, and predatory on the previously mentioned above-grounders.
without one of these aforementioned systems of existence (chemical dependence, population control, et cetera) i propose that plato's republic would fail. there are simply too many artists.
can you think of a way whereby artists would not be driven insane, other than the scenarios i've offered above? is it even a feasible possibility? what is it exactly that plato despises about artistic expression? whether you believe in jesus or darwin, we are copies of some greater form (dna or jesus himself). why is it so wrong for us, facsimilies ourselves, to use and embrace imitations in our daily lives?
Sunday, February 7, 2010
response to misty's so, you got a line on some paper...
you asked: if society views an object as art, does it make that object art?
i think yes and no. society as a whole will never, ever agree unanimously on anything, discounting perhaps that food and sex and water and sleep are good. because of this, part of society could view something as art, and then it would be art to them - there will ALWAYS be those dissenters who'll squabble and moan, thus excluding the possibility for art to be art because society views it as such.
yes: we discussed intention of the behalf of both the artist and the art observer. if you prescribe to this theory, then yes, art is any-freaking-thing that either the artist or the art observer deems "art."
no: again, you'll never get all hands up on any issue. someone could crumple a piece of paper up and then drizzle it with chocolate syrup and a maraschino cherry and stick it on top of a traffic cone and call it ice cream. i'd call that a piece of trash and a waste of a good maraschino, but the artist would definitely defy that view.
tricky question, but thought provoking.
if you can get MOST of a room, a town, a city, a country, to agree that a work is in fact a work of art, then is it art? is it an issue of majority, or simply of one observer agreeing with the artist? is that agreement even necessary? is the artist's intent enough alone?
i think yes and no. society as a whole will never, ever agree unanimously on anything, discounting perhaps that food and sex and water and sleep are good. because of this, part of society could view something as art, and then it would be art to them - there will ALWAYS be those dissenters who'll squabble and moan, thus excluding the possibility for art to be art because society views it as such.
yes: we discussed intention of the behalf of both the artist and the art observer. if you prescribe to this theory, then yes, art is any-freaking-thing that either the artist or the art observer deems "art."
no: again, you'll never get all hands up on any issue. someone could crumple a piece of paper up and then drizzle it with chocolate syrup and a maraschino cherry and stick it on top of a traffic cone and call it ice cream. i'd call that a piece of trash and a waste of a good maraschino, but the artist would definitely defy that view.
tricky question, but thought provoking.
if you can get MOST of a room, a town, a city, a country, to agree that a work is in fact a work of art, then is it art? is it an issue of majority, or simply of one observer agreeing with the artist? is that agreement even necessary? is the artist's intent enough alone?
response to aurora on time and art
the ed hopper exhibit you saw sounds enthralling - i think the fact that he could paint as well as temporate is a pretty astonishing feat.
i think your take on impressionism is interesting. the impression obviously differs with the impressionist; a vase of orchids will look different to each viewer, and each viewer also has different skills and modes, so between these two differences there exists a whole range of possibilities, which probably one of the contributing factors as to how the impressionist movement was able to thrive the way it did.
other forms absolutely capture time. hopper's piece probably is an anomaly amongst the visual arts in that he was able to implement the passing of time in the art itself, if i interpreted correctly. music captures time via the verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus structure, or whatever structure the musician chooses. the repetition acts sort of as an artistic stopwatch or something? dance, though, does it the best, out of the mediums that you listed. you can watch the direction of the movement, compare it with the last 10 seconds of dance, and watch the forms progress/digress/disappear/appear.
is there another format that more purely captures the passage of time? literature? the pyramids?! frank lloyd wright played with light and the sun's path through heaven in his architecture, you should definitely check it out.
i think your take on impressionism is interesting. the impression obviously differs with the impressionist; a vase of orchids will look different to each viewer, and each viewer also has different skills and modes, so between these two differences there exists a whole range of possibilities, which probably one of the contributing factors as to how the impressionist movement was able to thrive the way it did.
other forms absolutely capture time. hopper's piece probably is an anomaly amongst the visual arts in that he was able to implement the passing of time in the art itself, if i interpreted correctly. music captures time via the verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus structure, or whatever structure the musician chooses. the repetition acts sort of as an artistic stopwatch or something? dance, though, does it the best, out of the mediums that you listed. you can watch the direction of the movement, compare it with the last 10 seconds of dance, and watch the forms progress/digress/disappear/appear.
is there another format that more purely captures the passage of time? literature? the pyramids?! frank lloyd wright played with light and the sun's path through heaven in his architecture, you should definitely check it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)