@ElDo Disc Golf - Point taken on the ‘Self-proclaimed artists” being intrinsically correct. Interesting that you should use the Emperor’s New Clothes metaphor - this is from a discussion I had with a friend who was a fine arts major at one time (and incidentally agreed with my view below). Here are my thoughts on the ‘legitimacy’ of art:
1.One man’s art is another man’s trash. If you create something, and you or those you care about find it appealing, then to them it is art. Art is a record of beauty, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
2.Art should be created because you wanted to. If your work is considered art by enough people (see #1) and you can make a living at it, that is wonderful. If enough people like it, you might be able to give up your day job.
3.If your work is only art to you, don’t expect the world to pick up the tab. Contribute something of value to the world and they will contribute to you. Someone once said that purpose of perfume is let a man know that something of beauty walked by. Art should serve a similar purpose.
4.More than artists, I question the legitimacy of art critics. Take someone who, as a child, never understood the moral of ‘The Emperor’s new clothes’, add the values of a professional sports agent, a dash of psychobabble, a week of watching PBS and you have an art critic. One of the best natural art critics is a child. They see without the politics, the preconceptions, they have no pretenses. Their emotions are nearer the surface and can easily tell you what they like, what makes them feel good, and what they dislike. (I’m reminded of a commercial where a celebrity is leading some kids through an art gallery and as they look at one of the paintings, a kid speaks up - ‘that looks like spagetti!’ the celebrity then takes a second look at the painting with an expression of realization that the emperor is naked.
5.And speaking of naked, yes the human body is a beautiful thing, but it can be just as beautiful clothed. Nudity is thrown into movies to get the ratings, in art for some odd reason, it makes it pure? I’m sorry but I don’t think so and I think that some of the ‘masters’ had some lecherous tendencies. I know of talented people who could not go for an art degree because they couldn’t stomach the ‘required’ nude portions of the curriculum. (Interesting enough, one of them did convince her professor to allow her to sketch a roommate in a swimming suit in lieu of that portion of the course.)
6.If anybody disagrees with the previous items, no problem. This is what art is about to me, and for everybody else, see #1
@ElDo Disc Golf - Point taken on the ‘Self-proclaimed artists” being intrinsically correct. Interesting that you should use the Emperor’s New Clothes metaphor - this is from a discussion I had with a friend who was a fine arts major at one time (and incidentally agreed with my view below). Here are my thoughts on the ‘legitimacy’ of art: 1.One man’s art is another man’s trash. If you create something, and you or those you care about find it appealing, then to them it is art. Art is a record of beauty, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 2.Art should be created because you wanted to. If your work is considered art by enough people (see #1) and you can make a living at it, that is wonderful. If enough people like it, you might be able to give up your day job. 3.If your work is only art to you, don’t expect the world to pick up the tab. Contribute something of value to the world and they will contribute to you. Someone once said that purpose of perfume is let a man know that something of beauty walked by. Art should serve a similar purpose. 4.More than artists, I question the legitimacy of art critics. Take someone who, as a child, never understood the moral of ‘The Emperor’s new clothes’, add the values of a professional sports agent, a dash of psychobabble, a week of watching PBS and you have an art critic. One of the best natural art critics is a child. They see without the politics, the preconceptions, they have no pretenses. Their emotions are nearer the surface and can easily tell you what they like, what makes them feel good, and what they dislike. (I’m reminded of a commercial where a celebrity is leading some kids through an art gallery and as they look at one of the paintings, a kid speaks up - ‘that looks like spagetti!’ the celebrity then takes a second look at the painting with an expression of realization that the emperor is naked. 5.And speaking of naked, yes the human body is a beautiful thing, but it can be just as beautiful clothed. Nudity is thrown into movies to get the ratings, in art for some odd reason, it makes it pure? I’m sorry but I don’t think so and I think that some of the ‘masters’ had some lecherous tendencies. I know of talented people who could not go for an art degree because they couldn’t stomach the ‘required’ nude portions of the curriculum. (Interesting enough, one of them did convince her professor to allow her to sketch a roommate in a swimming suit in lieu of that portion of the course.) 6.If anybody disagrees with the previous items, no problem. This is what art is about to me, and for everybody else, see #1