Derek, two of the reasons you're so unrewarding to discuss things with are
your inability to grasp the point of what the other fellow is saying, and your
irrepressible impulse to say nay.
Look again at what I wrote. Try to see I was focusing on why the CREATOR does
what he does, and on his feeling as he does it. Yes, there is a second
satisfaction that can come to him from realizing he has afforded people what
you
have called a "response to art". And I myself don't feel that's a silly,
valueless effect that trivializes any artist who takes satisfaction if he does
it.
But, believe it, the first satisfaction comes during the creating, from the
creating, when you believe you have "nailed" it.
You can't even wrap your mind around what YOU are saying. The logic of your
use of Van Gogh is so deranged it's breathtaking. You believe you have made a
rebutting thrust by citing him as a reduction ad absurdum example, because you
apparently think what I wrote implies I must foolishly believe Van Gogh "went
through years of non-recognition and poverty just so some Sunday afternoon
aesthete could feel a delicate pulse of 'aesthetic pleasure' and feel
'satisfied'."
You don't see that the example of Van Gogh doesn't refute my point, instead
it is marvelously consonant with my point? He NEVER had the experience of
knowing he had occasioned an a.e. in a "Sunday afternoon aesthete", he never
sold a
painting in his life, so why would I think that was what moved him to go on
for years doing what he did? Exactly my point is that the first, the primary,
motivation in a creator is the "passion and satisfaction" that comes during,
and from, the act of creating.
Samuel Johnson wrote, "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."
Again, a true "non-artist" talking about an activity he had no personal
experience with at all.
In a message dated 6/4/08 4:15:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Interesting. But do we really think artists like Van Gogh, Monet,
> Cezanne and so many others went through years of non-recognition or
> poverty or both just so some Sunday afternoon aesthete could feel a
> delicate pulse of 'aesthetic pleasure' and feel 'satisfied'.
>
> Yuk!
>
> DA
>
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 10:08 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In a message dated 6/4/08 3:00:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >
> >> I think the idea that art 'satisfies' is silly anyway. It is linked to
> >> the idea that art exists merely to be a source of 'pleasure'. Who but
> >> the stereotype 'aesthete' thinks that any longer?
> >>
> > Spoken like a true "non-artist", someone who has never had the experience
> of
> > creating the kinds of works most of us are devoted to.
> >
> > Critics, sociologists, moralists, leaders of "movements" -- they all
would
> > tell creators what they "ought" to be doing, what their "purpose" should
> be,
> > what their "function" is. Luckily, worthy creative passion and
> satisfaction is
> > deaf to all that.
>
**************
Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?&
NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
