Let me first apologize for not having changed my user name yet. I completely forgot how to do it.
I have enjoyed several of the ideas advanced in the last few chapters but I feel that the author has downplayed a few aspects of creativity and the creative process which I believe play an important part in the creation of art. One of which is the artistic context in which art is produced. I agree with the notion of a creative spark or impulse that seems to come from some place outside the consciousness of the individual, but I think these notions often come as a response to a greater artistic context. For example Abstract Expressionist painting may attempt to capture the essence of raw creative power but I feel that the need for the expression of this creative power is greatly influenced by the restrictive nature of preexisting artistic techniques.
I am also interested in the section of chapter 6 or 7, I don't remember which, that dealt with the mythologizing of the artist. I have always felt that there is an aspect of art that deals exclusively with power. The entire idea of separating artistic creations into degrees of quality implies a position of authority which makes me uncomfortable. I believe that in many ways the idea of the artist has been cultivated into something that is supposed to discourage the creative ability of the average person. Artist, with their much lauded idiosyncrasies, are set apart from the normal in a way that stigmatizes the notion of the artist and limits the overall creative potential of societies in their entirety.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Interesting perspective on the idea of authority, power and the artist, and on the ways in which artist are stigmatized (or lauded). Can you explain more about what you mean by restrictive artistic techniques? It's intrigueing but not clear to me yet.
Post a Comment