Art = Self-Expression?

[Totenkindly]

What do y'all think of this quote?

...The current view equating art with "self-expression" reveals more a contemporary bias in our thinking than an underlying trait of the medium. Even the separation of art from craft is largely a post-Renaissance concept, and more recent still is the notion that art transcends what you do and represents what you are.

In the past few centuries, Western art has moved from the unsigned tableaus of orthodox religious scenes to one-person displays of personal cosmologies. "Artist" has gradually become a form of identity which (as every artist knows) often carries with it as many drawbacks as benefits.

Consider that if artist equals "self," then when (inevitably) you make flawed art, you are a flawed person, and when (worse yet!) you make no art, you are no person at all!

Reactions?

 

[The Ü™]

I never looked at art as an expression of the self, but more as an expression of ideas and concepts.

In my art, I'm not trying to put personal feelings into the piece but merely expressing a notion in my mind that I thought was cool, funny, or whatnot...but that's an NT for you...

 

[raincrow007]

I never looked at art as an expression of the self, but more as an expression of ideas and concepts.

In my art, I'm not trying to put personal feelings into the piece but merely expressing a notion in my mind that I thought was cool, funny, or whatnot...but that's an NT for you...

 

[Totenkindly]

IOW, it wasn't really an expression of "feeling" but an expression of "idea"?

(said another way, it's more impersonal -- an expression of concept -- rather than an expression of self.)

 

[Zergling]

It's probably as much an expression of "self" as the artist wants it to be.

I'm sure some elements of an artist's "self" come out in the art no matter what, but that's just because of subtle changes based on viewpoints, experiences, etc. that may have a slight effect on the picture, but would not be any different between art and, say, picking a house to live in, picking a gift to give someone, or other such activities where people make some style choices.

 

[raincrow007]

IOW, it wasn't really an expression of "feeling" but an expression of "idea"?

(said another way, it's more impersonal -- an expression of concept -- rather than an expression of self.)

It's still subjective. There's no way to separate one's experience of reality or one's version of "objectivity" from oneself, therefore by extension all artwork expresses some part of the self.


Doesn't really matter though; it's a goofy quote. Especially the last line. :rolli:

 

[wildcat]

The mind must be empty. The self must cease. Only then you can see the other.
You cannot describe the other if you do not see it, can you?

But.. is the other the other?

 

[The Ü™]

IOW, it wasn't really an expression of "feeling" but an expression of "idea"?

Yes, that's what I was getting at, because I don't really have feelings (besides anger).

I try to separate self from ideas, because I always figured the self was more about emotions.

 

[Jezebel]

I don't think art has to be about meaningful self expression, and I get annoyed with those who insist it should be. I'm very commercial art friendly. I usually don't care if someone who sees my work later knows I did it. For me, it's more about problem solving and enjoying the creativity in finding ways to express ideas (even if they aren't my own).

 

[The Ü™]

I don't think art has to be about meaningful self expression, and I get annoyed with those who insist it should be. I'm very commercial art friendly. I usually don't care if someone who sees my work later knows I did it. For me, it's more about problem solving and enjoying the creativity in finding ways to express ideas (even if they aren't my own).

I share your feeling. By the way, what's your type? (I'm just curious, PM me if you want.)

The way I see it, art means whatever you want it to mean. To me, people who ask me what something means want to have it spelled out for them, and therefore don't really understand art and are too lazy to think for themselves.

 

[FemMecha]

There's also a distinction between art and craft.

Craft is less about personal expression, ideas, or philosophy. It is more pragmatic and functional. Commercialism is craft, rarely art. Art is something different, although not everyone has perceptions developed to tell the difference. People based their concept of all artistic expression on what they are able to perceive in a work. It's one reason arrogance is such a problem. A student only perceives a shallow level of a work. The same student produces work on the level they perceived the masterpiece. The student assumes they are a master. The best sign of an artist is someone who has the capacity to perceive beyond what they create. That is the only evidence the person has the capacity to grow.

The two poles of philosophy regarding art are: 1. artistic expression reaches towards an ideal that exists outside of self, and 2. art reveals the nature of self and the perceptual experience of being a human being. I have never understood why some people think an idea is less of an expression of self than an emotion. I am far less defined by my emotions than by my ideas. It is my ideas that create the framework of my mind. Feelings only result from this and from my body chemistry. They are not an entity in and of themselves, but merely a reaction to the meat of who I am. I suspect this is true for all.

 

[The Ü™]

Well, wouldn't invention then be more a craft than an art since it emphasizes pragmatism and functionality?

I always thought that craft was more like science.

 

[Jezebel]

By the way, what's your type? (I'm just curious, PM me if you want.)

Either INTJ or INTP, I don't know where I belong

There's also a distinction between art and craft.

I categorize craft as a form of art, rather than making them two separate entities. Even generic commercial art can be seen as a reflection of the ideas of the society it came from. In art history, I have found much of that just as fascinating as other forms of art.

 

[FemMecha]

Well, wouldn't invention then be more a craft than an art since it emphasizes pragmatism and functionality?

I always thought that craft was more like science.

I categorize craft as a form of art, rather than making them two separate entities. Even generic commercial art can be seen as a reflection of the ideas of the society it came from. In art history, I have found much of that just as fascinating as other forms of art.

We will end up getting down to a debate over definitions at this point. Functionality isn't the key issue imo, but one of exploration vs. repetition. The 'craftsman' recreates the same object so to speak. The 'artist' is searching for something beyond what they have created. In 'craft' it is created to serve, to be used, understood. It is not intended to challenge perception, knowledge, or assumptions. Art, on the other hand, does all these things. It is a complicated discussion as there is no black-and-white. Easily an individual and created object can contain elements of both. It is useful to separate the two processes, rather than lumping everything into an absolute category of sameness.

 

[The Ü™]

In 'craft' it is created to serve, to be used, understood. It is not intended to challenge perception, knowledge, or assumptions. Art, on the other hand, does all these things.

Does an 'artist' have to challenge other people's perception, too, or just one's own?

When an art critic asks "What are you trying to say with this piece?" would that be more of looking for 'craft?'

Because when I draw, paint, or write, I'm not trying to tell people to act a certain way or communicate a definite message about life. I'm more in it for the creative expression and perhaps "shock value" or communicating thoughts that challenge what's socially appropriate.

 

[FemMecha]

Does an 'artist' have to challenge other people's perception, too, or just one's own?

When an art critic asks "What are you trying to say with this piece?" would that be more of looking for 'craft?'

Because when I draw, paint, or write, I'm not trying to tell people to act a certain way or communicate a definite message about life. I'm more in it for the creative expression and perhaps "shock value" or communicating thoughts that challenge what's socially appropriate.

So much of artistic communication can happen subconsciously. New ideas expressed completely abstractly can challenge people without it having any type of identifiable message. Some artists do have a specific message, but when that message becomes really perfunctory, the art can suffer. Things that are overtly preachy aren't challenging in the way I am attempting to describe here.

Beethoven can serve as a good example because his work is intensely abstract. Yet, his music is philosophy in sound. He even considered becoming a philosopher as his hearing declined. It's difficult to put into words, but his work explores the conflict between the individual and fate. It has to do with exerting individual will. This is not accomplished through text or any overt means. It is done with abstract patterns that go through a process of conflict and resolution. On listening to this work, experiencing the process that the sound goes through, we can understand some aspect of his ideas, his experience of the obstacles we face, their intensity and nature, and the method through which they are resolved and conquered.

Asian classical music, and European music influenced by it, tends to lack that kind of closure. It is based on cyclic structures. It mirrors the ideas in Eastern philosophy on many levels. This is rarely done intentionally. The culture, philosophy, ways of resolving conflict, the myriads of assumption we hold, come through in our expression oftentimes without our conscious attempt.

The Indian raga, its classical musical structure, contains four sections that parallel the stages in Hindu cosmology. Whether or not this is overtly intentional, i'm not certain. The process in the music goes from stability and clarity of the initial scale staying within a close range to its drone, to become progressively more active, more unstable, venturing further from its center, its pure ideal. That process is assumed to apply to everything, so it is no surprise it ended up in their musical structure.

Dance movements tend to emphasize the direction which that culture understand as the ideal realm. Western European ballet focuses on upward movements towards the heavenly realms. Nature based cultures have movements that are earthward. Eastern dance forms have intricate movements pointing in towards the body reflecting a philosophy of inward focus and meditation. None of this is intentional, but is the natural evolution of the expression.

Many pages could be written about this in more detail, but the principle holds for culture, society, and individual. That is what makes art so fascinating. It is humanity's looking glass. It allows us to see the face we look out from.

 

[Totenkindly]

Beethoven can serve as a good example because his work is intensely abstract. ..

Asian classical music, and European music influenced by it, tends to lack that kind of closure. ...

The Indian raga, its classical musical structure, contains four sections that parallel the stages in Hindu cosmology....

Dance movements tend to emphasize the direction which that culture understand as the ideal realm. ...

Many pages could be written about this in more detail, but the principle holds for culture, society, and individual. That is what makes art so fascinating. It is humanity's looking glass. It allows us to see the face we look out from.

This is fascinating, Toonia, and I so wish I had spent more time expanding my knowledge of music history so that I could grasp what you are saying in its totality. (I understand the principles but it would click so much better if I knew more details to plug into it.)

It did raise an unsettling question for me, though: Looking at American pop music, what does that say about the values and complexity of our culture? (And I'm not talking about anything as banal as "bad lyrics" and the like, I'm looking at the actual structure of the songs and how they are put together.)

I'm afraid to answer that question in the detail it deserves, because I fear we will be found very wanting...

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I think that whoever is quoted in that statement fails to see that a part of ourselves is present in whatever we create, even if it is clearly craft and not art. If you ask 100 people to paint the same landscape, they will all look different. That is the self coming out whether the vanity inherent in self-expression is present or not.

I've debated the definition of art with myself, and I've come up with this: "Art is a creative endeavor in which the artist attempts to reproduce in the audience feelings and emotions that he himself has felt. Art is an effort to convey a point of view emotionally rather than logically."

This is why I think that art means only what the artist intends it to mean. I think that when people say, "well, it means what you want it to mean", that that is BS. It means only what the artist had in mind, because he is the one that created it. If you think you have discovered another meaning to the work, no matter how logical, it is invalid on its face. If the work is a painting of a clown holding balloons, and the artist says that it represents why he hates his mother, then that is what it means, period.