Is Art Dead?

Vincent van Gogh said you shouldn't sell anything until you have 100 paintings.

Otherwise it cramps your style.

Spiritually, the individual is being crushed, the creative spark snuffed out to create a controllable mass. The nail that sticks out gets hammered.

It's cyclic. Spoiled, lethargic and jaded people produce little.

Good summation - and current art, film, music etc...is being
used to do this, exactly the opposite of what it should do. Art should expand, enrich, humanize....it's being used to debase, dehumanize, crush...

The symbolism in Star Wars goes over most people's heads. For example, what do we see right in the beginning of Episode 1? A ship full of robots with reptilian rulers. I've studied it and I believe that a very deep message about reality is being shown. Even right down to the reptilian rulers having Asian accents, there's a lot there that most people can't see.

There's a famous spiritual researcher who claims that beings that look like Jar Jar Binks actually exist, Credo Mutwa claims that beings that look like Darth Maul actually exist. Jordan Maxwell claims that Freemasons worship a being that looks like Yoda. On and on.

There's so much in Star Wars that masses can't see, it's really deep.

BS... only if you're a mass-media pop culture junkie.

Regular folks know what they like, and are still buying it.

Business is booming!

OP, Thanks for this thread - many artists are on here.
As an artist I can say from experience that squeezing out a decent living wage from creating art isn't common or easy to come by. Yet making something from starting out with nothing but paper and art supplies sure is fun, whether or not there's money or an appreciative audience or artistic immortality coming from it. Helping others to find their own expressive style by learning to work with the materials is part of it. The artist's self-satisfaction is as much about reaching a unique style again and again which wordlessly communicates one's soul essence, as it is about the result. The steadiest artist money is in being an art teacher which is what getting paid to have fun is! For most who are lucky enough to ever make money producing artwork, it's sporadic. From the time I was old enough to grip a crayon, I loved making pictures that others knew what they were about. Back in grade school I'd trade my drawings for a toy or candy; and drew funny naughty cariciatures of the kids & teachers that got me attention and some detentions, too - plenty fun. In high school my first art job for pay was sitting at a mall booth engraving whatever words initials or picture the customer requested on cufflinks or a medallion or pin or bracelet with a dremel. Ever since Art School I've done many more drawings and paintings than ever sold, painted some murals, had works printed on Tshirts, done designs for inventions, illustrations and advertising art on commission - 'n stuff.
The best use I've always found for artwork is to effect a transformation of emotional negativity into something positive to heal myself. That's when making drawings that mostly get thrown away isn't always such a bad idea.
Nowadays it's difficult to find art supplies which are of the accustomed quality of former years: that's a problem. Sometimes the manufacturers must omit crucial materials that give the top-quality results which can be unsafe around unsupervised children or hazardous when not correctly worked with because of a lawsuit. More often, when a pigment or medium can be made cheaper, that's what becomes the standard and the more expensive item won't sell in enough quantity to be profitable. Same as the difference between watching a digital reproduction of a Technicolor movie and viewing the original - most won't notice the downgrade, or care.
Some glorious colors are no longer available in paints and inks... paper & canvas is different now etc. & that's that.
Goodluck finding such items as binder, real turpentine, wallsize rolls of imported handmade archival drawing or watercolor paper, mixable/adaptable natural pure permanent pigments, ethereal chalk pastels, jeweltone wax pencils, gold and silverpoint pencils, etc in the stores, these days.
Once in awhile these may turn up at an estate sale.

You are a cliche!

Havn't the nerve to add more do you?

not like anyone's been trying to kill it and artists

Art isn't dead, yet. It's being suffocated by vacuous corporatism and political correctness mass marketed to the sheep: Rap & hip-hop, reality TV, and visual "art" that reinforces socialism.

How do you think an artist survived hundreds of years ago? They created what they were paid to create. They were paid to do portraits of rich assholes and the like.

I think for art to flourish in the future, the entire subculture of the "artist" must be destroyed. Its a pathetic clique filled with plenty of assholes, many who simply create disgusting crap just for shock value. Forget about recognition if you dont fit into that clique. Oh, and they all look down upon the "non artists" who could actually create something beautiful and personal on their own, if only they werent trapped in ther rat race, or told that what they want to do isnt art, or not cool enough, or just doesnt push the envelope enough.

When we get to a point where anyone who creates is properly recognized as an artist, then I think youll see amazing things come out of that.

Art is indeed alive!
:libertyBELL:

Freudian slip of sole to soul, or purposeful intent?

I must know

I agree.

Amazing art comes in all forms. It can be stumbled upon or it can be masterfully crafted. With that, let's examine this question;

What does it take to make an amazing piece of art (of any genre)?

- masterful skill (to have the ability to create anything you imagine)

- knowledge and scope of genre (for frame of reference)

- the all-important creative sense (strong right brain influence and ability to 'see' things outside the box

- sense of inhibition (to be able let yourself go outside the box and beyond the norm)


When you have every one of these traits in your specific discipline (and in balance), you then have the ability to make amazing art.

Historically, great art has always required a freedom of expression, a decently healthy, moral society, and an intelligent, enlightened audience to enjoy it and support it.

What we have today as a society, is so gross in those terms, no one would have the patience, ethics, intelligence, or appreciation for the real effort behind great works, nor do they care.

Instead we get urine in jars, light bulbs in rooms, canvases with blue squares, all instantly forgettable, destined for trash heaps everywhere. We get recycled mass media music that is instantly forgettable as soon as it's gone out public view, movies that appeal to base emotions with no substance, and an overall blahness with anything being produced.

I can't look at one piece of art today and say it inspires me towards beauty and greater ideals in humanity. I could look at art and sculpture from 400 years ago and still feel the welling up in my chest. It's emotional, it's inspiring, it shows the dreams of the people producing it and their desire for better things.

Healthy societies and people produce great art and enjoy it. A sick, perverted, violent child like society could care less.

:cosmicchrist:
[link to alexgrey.com]

This ^^^

It has not been done until you do it, it is not dead until you kill it. Knock it off with the 1st year art school angst, put on your big boy pants and go create something.

I would like to draw again, but my drawings would be considered obscene.

You strike me as someone who needs a lot of Preparation H

art is not dead. you just don't understand it anymore

Vincent Van Gogh who has been mentioned was an especially interesting artist, and my thoughts on his paintings and life are that he seemed to desperately to also want some kind of appreciation for his work.
Doing absolutely great paintings was not enough to satisfy him.

And even the appreciation of his fellow ARTISTS seemed not to be enough for him.

(His friends and companions were the most magnificent artist of all time..............yet his EGO wanted more than their appreciation alone. It wanted the money that went along with his idea of being a "successful artist".)

THE EGO IS NEVER SATISFIED REGARDLESS WHAT ONE ACHIEVES.

Anyway, nearly all of the great artists he knew and even lived with, were all doing a type of creative work that none had done before.

And Van Gogh's work was the most intense of all those great painters. They ALL knew how great he was as a painter, and also his drawings.

And they were also having similar problems selling any work.

I think the reason their work was unpopular then, is because it was NEW. And the non artist public who bought the art in those days and at all other times also have very little knowledge about why something is good, and they have no idea why something is way beyond good.
They have no artistic sense to measure such things.

When something is really CREATIVE, it is NEW.
It is like a new language.

And it can make even other fellow artists; painters or even in music, or any other creative field, who have never seen or heard such work before feel uncomfortable.
They feel uncomfortable because they have not seen it long enough to realize the 'rules' of order that the NEW CREATIVE WORK has.

Great composers have had people even walk out of concerts that featured their new musical compositions.

And it takes a while for some to learn the ' vocabulary of the new creative work.

Can't discuss ideas just adhominum attacks. Whether or not something is a cliche is irrelevant, what matters is whether or not it's true.

Wouldn't it be best to keep one's anal fixation out of the discussion, yes, maybe you just can't help yourself.

Blow it out your ass you bloviating buffoon!

Interesting thread! I want to comment on the musical side of this discussion.

A large amount of people comment that popular music is cut and paste of the same things we have been listening to for years, and to an extent that is true. With the exception of jazz, there has not been a major shift in musical appreciation for at least 100 years. I feel this is due to modern advancements of recording and electronic instruments and the electronic technology.

It has come to a point where we understand the progressions, harmonies and melodies people enjoy listening to. That is why you have so many songs with similar or the same chord progressions. I am a music producer and I feel the evolution of music has been and will continue to gear towards the evolution of sound. Look at the 70s to now, and electronic elements in music and the extra recording effects have become more dominant.

I feel instead of trying to make masterful long works that change let's multiple times and have abstract harmonies and rhythms, we will be developing sounds and effects that have never been heard before. An example is the rise of dubstep. Obviously not groundbreaking musically, but definitely groundbreaking sonically. I'm not a huge fan of dubstep, but I don't think this evolution of music into this type of direction of brand new types of sounds is cool and interesting.

I'm not saying live music will ever go away, as it is always going to be thrilling to listen to an orchestra live, with each instruments character and slight tonal inconsistencies, all resonating slightly out of tune with eachother and filling a live room with human feeling music. Or for a jazz musician creating his own interpretations of Improvisation on the spot, creating a new experience for the listener each time. I do feel that popular music and music reflected in movies and other media will be evolving with technolgy though.

Not dead, or bad, just different.

Sorry, I meant changing keys, not changing "let's". Also I Do find it cool and interesting that it is evolving in this direction, unlike the end of that paragraph is written. Sorry typing from my phone.

No, it just smells funny.