Monday, November 23, 2009

Scoffing the Mirror

Watch @YouTube! | Follow @Twitter | Like @Facebook!


Is art for the artist or the spectator? I think it's for the artist. I think you can certainly create art for others and it be appreciated, but really and truly I think art is for the artist. It is quite a conundrum though: if the art isn't appreciated, is the artist fulfilled? I guess this is really the dividing line between art for the maker, or the viewer. By having that part of yourself on display and it being loved makes the artist feel like they're accepted and loved as well, but is the purpose of the art to be loved and accepted? I don't think it is, I think art is something that's in a person and needs to be expressed, and just because it isn't should not be the life/death of the maker, which is why, in my mind, that art is for the artist, because if it's truly art then it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks since the art isn't for/from them, it's for/from you and if they're able to relate then all the better.

6 comments:

Regina Quentin said...

So, by this definition, "art" can be anything?

Wes Hemings said...

Why yes, yes it can.

Regina Quentin said...

I think that people use the above statements as an excuse to do whatever they want. to draw/create/display offensive or extremely violent things and pass them off as art. I know the debate could go on forever because of questions like, "Offensive to whom?" "Who has the right to judge what is art?". I get it and all. It just doesn't mean I want to walk into an art gallery and see something that gives me bad dreams for my entire life. People who make porn consider it art. I don't. I wish it wasn't made.

Blah.

Wes Hemings said...

No one said art has to be tasteful or acceptable. Murder can be art, but it's obviously not tolerable and falls into other categories as well (such as: MURDER!).

Regina Quentin said...

It's Wednesday.

Wes Hemings said...

I know!! lol

Post a Comment