Does being a full time professional artist hurt, or enhance art? When your art becomes your soul source of income, suddenly you find yourself making decisions based on what will best support you. Meanwhile, having a day job means you have precious little time for your art, and it often gets the lowest priority in your life.
Should art be open to interpretation, or is art best when it thoroughly conveys the meanings or emotions of its creator?
Over the last 80 years, craftsmanship has switched from “create beautiful and lasting works” to “create cheap to produce, and therefore profitable works”. This has effected everything from architecture, to screenplays. Has this new minimalist “form over function”, "cost over aesthetics" idealism been a positive effect on art, or the death of it?
1. The best of the three, as I think it gives the best opportunity for you to put your personal experience and viewpoint into the discussion.
2. A terribly vague and kinda derpy question. All art is open to interpetation. Most art, unless you are on contract to churn out sunset landscape paintings or dogs playing cards, is a work of the artists heart, because if his heart isn't in it, it will not succeed for long.
3. This one makes a statement without justifying the stance, and based on the phrasing, leads towards a negative response. I don't nessasarily agree with the accessment. Often art is a compromise between dreams and reality. I'd love to build a life-size working godzilla statue, but will accept that its more likely I will be able to build a costume that I can wear, and perhaps even get breath and some animatronics wired into it.
You'd proabably love to perform from a platform dangling from your airship, while the performance is projected on the sides. Aesthetically, that would be awesome. Cost-wise... well...
So, in order of preference, I'd go with 1, 3, then 2 as a last choice.
Should art be open to interpretation, or is art best when it thoroughly conveys the meanings or emotions of its creator?
Over the last 80 years, craftsmanship has switched from “create beautiful and lasting works” to “create cheap to produce, and therefore profitable works”. This has effected everything from architecture, to screenplays. Has this new minimalist “form over function”, "cost over aesthetics" idealism been a positive effect on art, or the death of it?
1. The best of the three, as I think it gives the best opportunity for you to put your personal experience and viewpoint into the discussion.
2. A terribly vague and kinda derpy question. All art is open to interpetation. Most art, unless you are on contract to churn out sunset landscape paintings or dogs playing cards, is a work of the artists heart, because if his heart isn't in it, it will not succeed for long.
3. This one makes a statement without justifying the stance, and based on the phrasing, leads towards a negative response. I don't nessasarily agree with the accessment. Often art is a compromise between dreams and reality. I'd love to build a life-size working godzilla statue, but will accept that its more likely I will be able to build a costume that I can wear, and perhaps even get breath and some animatronics wired into it.
You'd proabably love to perform from a platform dangling from your airship, while the performance is projected on the sides. Aesthetically, that would be awesome. Cost-wise... well...
So, in order of preference, I'd go with 1, 3, then 2 as a last choice.
Reply
Leave a comment