Hate Me, Blue October
And what topic shall be my point of discussion today, my delightful little padawans? I know! Art! A topic most of so Toreador a bend as I am inclined are thrilled to discuss. You see, there are a great many "artists" out there, who make music, paintings, photographs, dance, paper, people-statues, et all ad nauseum. And in the opinion of yours truly, the majority of them are full of shit.
Allow me to extrapolate on this point before you break out the tar and poultry-fur.
The fact of the matter is this; Art is a personal entity. It is created of a person's vision, and displayed for interpretation by the masses who would take it in. This makes the entire process completely subject to opinion. *nods just a touch* In your opinion, your interpretive dance symbolizes the joy of birth and motherhood, whereas in my opinion, you just flailed about madly for half an hour. Opinion.
There are those "artistes" who would demand that certain works be considered inviolate, despite ones opinions. They would argue that the beauty of the Mona Lisa, or the vocal acrobatics of Pavarotti are not to be trifled with, and should be appreciated by all people from all walks of life. These are, however, the same people who would decry hip-hop as a foul abomination, and deny that the lyrical stylings of Run DMC were anything more than noise.
As I said, art is sbuject to opinion. Opinion is the glass through which we view art, and as such, each person interprets art in a manner befitting their life... not always befitting the vision of the creator. Because, once a piece has been put up for public scrutiny, it is no longer the intellectual and creative property of the artist... because everyone will take away from that viewing something entirely different from the person standing next to them, if anything at all. I look at half the shit Van Gogh did, and have but to scratch my head in relative confusion as to the hubub. Mind you, I think at least a modicum of that owes to my color-blindness.
I suppose what I'm getting at is this... Those "artistes" who make such demands of others on agreeing upone "true art" deserve your wrath and scorn, and nothing more. Because it is in such a homogeneous culture that art in any form will wither and die... Personal interpretation is the spark of understanding, and once one spreads their understanding, NOT their demanding opinion, to others for speculation and consideration, a greater knowledge can finally be born. The aim of the artist, and the interpretations of the myriad souls who would view his/her works combine to create something greater than even the piece they stop to ponder. Without this non-judgemental sharing of ideas, art will be stifled...
And really, can a life without art, even bad art, even be considered living? Well, I suppose that's for you to decide...
-Devlin
Allow me to extrapolate on this point before you break out the tar and poultry-fur.
The fact of the matter is this; Art is a personal entity. It is created of a person's vision, and displayed for interpretation by the masses who would take it in. This makes the entire process completely subject to opinion. *nods just a touch* In your opinion, your interpretive dance symbolizes the joy of birth and motherhood, whereas in my opinion, you just flailed about madly for half an hour. Opinion.
There are those "artistes" who would demand that certain works be considered inviolate, despite ones opinions. They would argue that the beauty of the Mona Lisa, or the vocal acrobatics of Pavarotti are not to be trifled with, and should be appreciated by all people from all walks of life. These are, however, the same people who would decry hip-hop as a foul abomination, and deny that the lyrical stylings of Run DMC were anything more than noise.
As I said, art is sbuject to opinion. Opinion is the glass through which we view art, and as such, each person interprets art in a manner befitting their life... not always befitting the vision of the creator. Because, once a piece has been put up for public scrutiny, it is no longer the intellectual and creative property of the artist... because everyone will take away from that viewing something entirely different from the person standing next to them, if anything at all. I look at half the shit Van Gogh did, and have but to scratch my head in relative confusion as to the hubub. Mind you, I think at least a modicum of that owes to my color-blindness.
I suppose what I'm getting at is this... Those "artistes" who make such demands of others on agreeing upone "true art" deserve your wrath and scorn, and nothing more. Because it is in such a homogeneous culture that art in any form will wither and die... Personal interpretation is the spark of understanding, and once one spreads their understanding, NOT their demanding opinion, to others for speculation and consideration, a greater knowledge can finally be born. The aim of the artist, and the interpretations of the myriad souls who would view his/her works combine to create something greater than even the piece they stop to ponder. Without this non-judgemental sharing of ideas, art will be stifled...
And really, can a life without art, even bad art, even be considered living? Well, I suppose that's for you to decide...
-Devlin