In response to Kim's post about Frued, found here:
http://kimsartandphlilosophyblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/art-as-communication-using-freuds-view.html?showComment=1298494752680#c5748496592258441370
I think that with respect to Frued's belief's within art, there is more to the concept of releasing repressed motions than he lets on to or even understood himself.
The primary reason I bring this up is that repressed emotion very specifically does not have to be a bad thing. An artistic person may experience something that derives good or bad emotions within them to which they can focus into the creation of a happy image. The thing that makes this most interesting is that to the artist this may be used simply as a cathartic exercise, but with the successful creation of the art it can be of monetary or even simply just emotional value to another human being.
I think that artists being unhappy people is a fairly strong stereotype about artists because the act and experience in creating art is so strong as a cathartic exercise. Typically I would say that the greater portion of morbid artists are artists that have expended to much into their work / focus too long on something that is very difficult to finish. The best example of this being someone who has writer's block; they cannot think of any new ideas and seem to have blown their creativity in the past until something triggers them to do what they are good at successfully again.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
A Note About Our Frued Conversation
So to catch up my blogging from last week, I forgot to mention one of the things that I found most interesting about the conversations we had about Frued in class. The topic that I am reffering to is the one where we discussed the comunication and understanding of the subconcious in its relation to how it affects artists.
To catch up on the point that we were making, the discussion was suggesting that the artist must successfully tap into their subconcious to derive the best creative work they can create. To which once we had decided that this is indeed what Frued would say on the subject, we began to talk about how interesting the concept of tapping the subconcious in creation of a piece of work can be. The biggest point deriving from this concept was suggesting that if an artist must tap into his subconcious to create art, that the viewer of the artwork would be exposed and expected to derive meaning from the origin's subconcious. Thus, we concieved the possibility of artists being able to communicate on a seperate level from normal conversation, a level of subconcious thought so to speak.
This was the most interesting to me because I had never considered this possibility previously, and really enjoyed the concept of a secret language between the best of artists. When brought up in class, we initially shunned the idea, but I think that there is some merit here that we are not considering. The key feature to which would be the concept of analyzing art amongst peers. When looking at a work and discussing the meanings and other important information that can be derived from it, we are simply talking about exactly what the artist intended to communicate through his/her subconscious as according to our experiences through art. When really considered like this, I feel that the secret language is at work all the time and frequently goes unnoticed to the bystanders who consistently overlook it when not considering art. Thus in the end I feel that the secret language is more present that we would think and that it may be a key feature to deriving the true understanding of art.
How do you feel about this concept?
To catch up on the point that we were making, the discussion was suggesting that the artist must successfully tap into their subconcious to derive the best creative work they can create. To which once we had decided that this is indeed what Frued would say on the subject, we began to talk about how interesting the concept of tapping the subconcious in creation of a piece of work can be. The biggest point deriving from this concept was suggesting that if an artist must tap into his subconcious to create art, that the viewer of the artwork would be exposed and expected to derive meaning from the origin's subconcious. Thus, we concieved the possibility of artists being able to communicate on a seperate level from normal conversation, a level of subconcious thought so to speak.
This was the most interesting to me because I had never considered this possibility previously, and really enjoyed the concept of a secret language between the best of artists. When brought up in class, we initially shunned the idea, but I think that there is some merit here that we are not considering. The key feature to which would be the concept of analyzing art amongst peers. When looking at a work and discussing the meanings and other important information that can be derived from it, we are simply talking about exactly what the artist intended to communicate through his/her subconscious as according to our experiences through art. When really considered like this, I feel that the secret language is at work all the time and frequently goes unnoticed to the bystanders who consistently overlook it when not considering art. Thus in the end I feel that the secret language is more present that we would think and that it may be a key feature to deriving the true understanding of art.
How do you feel about this concept?
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
An Attempt to Define Art - Continued
Throughout the corse of this class I have been trying to piece together my own little theories about art here and there between my blogposts. After having created the image that I did to help explain my equation from the first week, I tried to help explain one of the variables used in the equation, thus this post is to help explain Inspiration, based roughly on how I thought of it when reading Tolstoy:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
