Re: 'I just want to toss a little water on the notion that all great artists who have struggled in poverty are like self-effacing saints who suffer for their art alone.'
According to Cheerskep I am the one who keeps missing the point, William. But this was certainly not my point I did not argue that 'all great artists who have struggled in poverty are like self-effacing saints who suffer for their art alone.' My point was that I found it hard to believe that great artists who struggled for years with poverty and non-recognition went through all that just to satsify the desires of some mincing aesthete with time on his hands. Art in my view has a much more serious purpose than that and I believe that all true artists - and not just visual artists but writers and composers as well - have been more or less aware of that. It is why they have so often been able to put up with long years of poverty, obscurity and contempt. Despite what you say, both Van Gogh and Monet are, in different ways, good examples of this. But there are many others. DA > --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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. > > What was it then? It goes without saying that an > artist like Van Gogh was deeply engaged with art, his > art, what could be art, and yet he was longing for > some validation -- the kind that doesn't require a > shift in expressive development. And then we might > wonder if Van Gogh ever finished his "developmental" > phase since he only painted for 5 years of his 10 yr. > career. His switch from the dark toned, rough work to > the more impressionist-like work shows his desire to > be up to date with the Parisian avant garde and thus > reveals a desire for acceptance by a sophisticated and > empathic audience. > > Monet was somewhat less of a nice guy than the popular > press suggests --which links pretty pictures to a > gentle personality. He mistreated his mistress and > friends, begging them for money while he was also > getting support from home, once abandoning his > pregnant mistress and child (at a resort, skipping on > the bill) to take a cruise with his parents and later > spending lavishly on himself (fancy autos and private > drivers, 5 star resort hotels where he holed up sans > lonely wife to paint from the windows) When he was > poor he was constantly taking money from his artist > friends, at least once threatening suicide if a > collector did not give him money. None of this means > his art is less great of course. I just want to toss > a little water on the notion that all great artists > who have struggled in poverty are like self-effacing > saints who suffer for their art alone. Sometimes they > are artists who mooch, steal, lie, abuse and otherwise > mistreat their family and friends, and fully > exasperate everyone around them with outrageous > selfishness. Monet was not free from that. Watch for > a new book later this year or early next year on Monet > by Mary M. Gedo from Univ. Chicago Press. I > collaborated with her on one chapter having to do with > an early Monet painting. > > WC >> >> 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
