---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
I can't remember his exact words but an old art teacher of mine defined art as
being "something that someone does that helps them better understand the world
or themselves". He put it a bit more eloquently but I like it as a description.
I can see how the painters I know are struggling to put their emotions,
philosophy and politics into visual form so that someone else can get an idea
of what their inner vision is. Musicians are artists for the same reason, ideas
and ways of thinking and feeling get passed on. That it can transform the world
hardly needs saying.
Art becomes a success when the person doing it feels they've nailed their
aims, that's the struggle - getting good enough - what other people think is
irrelevant as he considered it nothing to do with them. Of course, people like
seeing what others think and feel and if it successfully communicates great
truths then it will be more successful. The only thing we can say for sure is
that we all see it differently.
Sorry if you've already gone over this, I haven't read the whole thread ;-)
I believe that visual artists attempt to show more about the thing they are
rendering than portraying their inner state through the representation of a
thing. I am not convinced that visual artists are so all about themselves but
more about revealing some deeper condition or truth about a thing - be it a
portrait of a person or a landscape. Art is often meant to enhance ones'
knowledge and appreciation of creation and when an artist is successful at
capturing that extra something then all are enriched. I guess you could also
say that one can also appreciate the person within the artist when they are
capable of deeper revelation through their work. That flatiron building photo
is extraordinary in that it creates not only a visual but a real visceral