h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

continuation (hopefully) of a conversation with Trin Tragula

obviously I think a Stalinist regime by determining what it considers relevant and valid can hinder artistic liberty

the artist themselves by seeking to be relevant may hinder their creativity but not their liberty

does that make sense

Not to me :D I have absuloutely no idea what you're on about, so I think I'll tune out from here...

Yes, that does - it makes perfect sense

So it depends on who is doing the 'making' - if the artist makes something relevant, it's a choice, if the society dictates what is relevant it's a restriction of liberty.

I suppose what got me thinking was the idea that the artist might experience the drive to be relevant as something subconscious, but socially constructed, if you see what I mean

Might have to continue thinking about this tomorrow...

In order to keep track of future thought-provokers, would it be all right if I added you to my friends list?

Happy to be on it, may I add you to mine

Good point about artist being limited by social constructs without being conscious of it
I'm sure that goes on all the time, trying to think of a good example

Absolutely

I've just been taking the liberty of browsing through your '1984' thread (I recently finished Anne Applebaum's 'Gulag' and I felt much the same way, really horrifying stuff) and I see you've got 'A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man' lined up - well, that's full of it: "there is no such thing as free thinking inasmuch as all thinking must be bound by its own laws" With Joyce, though, it's the artist's attempt to become conscious of the constructs that's much of the point.

Oh my - really will have to go to

*whispers from the back of the room*

I think the art should only ever have to be relevant to the artist.

Did that make sense?

*On way to bed, stops and thinks* 'only ever *have* to be' - Yes - perfect sense

yes, but the artists a product of society so can he truly be working only to please himself

Good night Trin

>>but the artists a product of society so can he truly be working only to please himself<<

wow - how am I going to sleep now?

Night!

I always thought art was an artist's way of dealing with thoughts and concepts...so therefore society would be reflected to a degree, but only what the artist sees or wants others to see??

isn't what the artist sees limited by the society he grew up in
take views of women or race
people don't think about these things in the same way as they did 100 years ago (or will in another 100)
an artist painting today is unlikely to depict women as passive objects or to employ sterotyped racial features that were once commonplace (the propagandist might but thats a different matter)

But isn't that the point of art?

To see what the artist sees?

but what we see is also limited
religious painting no longer provokes in us the reaction that it did for someone 500 years ago so we're no longer seeing what the artist saw, only what they depicted

But the way that the artist depicted these images would evoke more emotion in a lot of people than a photograph would...because it really does give you a more intimate feeling...

agreed, and I'm sure a great artist sometimes transcends the limitations I mentioned so some works speak across the ages

indeed a great artist may sometimes transcend limitations they set themselves
Brecht sought to limit the audiences emotional involvement in his plays so they might draw the "correct" conclusions he wanted them to draw. In Mother Courage and Her Children he created in Mother Courage a character who engages the audiences sympathy and admiration although that was not his intention

rant over for now

Is that my cue to go outside and have a smoke before my brain explodes ??

just when you'd woken me up too

I'm not supposed to get into serious discussion...people either pick on me or my eyes start bleeding...

...anyway I am going out for a smoke...back in a little while!

It does to me, Blackberry Cat....

a relevant quote from Charles T. Sprading
"when the artist paints what the public demands, it is not art, but business"
that I think we can probably agree with but can an artist be too obsessed with their private vision. Surely great art will be relevant, will speak to a wider audience?