Well it so happens I have read Van Gogh's letters - with great interest. I also own a copy. I don't think 'the desire to connect with an audience' is a hugely prominent feature. In any case, 'connecting with an audience' is not what I was talking about.
If my memory serves me, Monet, while he had a long career, spent many long years in poverty in the earlier stages, with a wife and family to support. Re" the feel-good sensation Derek seems to assume from Cheerskep.' My original response - about 'satisfaction' - was not if I recall in response to a post from Cheerskep. But I do think that a widespread view about the function of art is that it is intended to foster feel-good feelings. The very word 'aesthetic' - which is so hopelessly ambiguous as I have often said - lends itself to this idea (with connotations of the 'aesthete' etc) DA > I recommend reading Van Gogh's Letters to Theo. If > ever there was an artist who longed to connect with an > audience it was Van Gogh. As for Monet, he always had > an audience, at first among painters, writers, and a > few supporters (including his family). He had a most > successful, long career. > > Satisfaction of the aesthetic sort is much more than > the feel-good sensation Derek seems to assume from > Cheerskep. The great art is a life-death paradox, the > sublime. Even the happy Impressionists were > interested in the paradox --the elusive, fickle, dying > moment, not that far really, from the content of the > Dutch still life painters. > > WC > > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> 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) > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
