Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Journal Bill Dog's Journal: On what it is to be an "artist" 5

This JE got me thinking about this. The example therein was yet another of boorish behavior and attempt at offense. And I don't call that "art". I could type something disgusting right now, easily, about something disgusting using disgusting words. Would that be "art"? What if I really meant it? What if I was really passionate about it?

One example of when I think of "artist" is a photographer. And I'm not talking about "photojournalists" here, who are just there to coldly record an event. Photography for "art" is supposed to evoke a feeling or emotion when you look at the photograph. But it's feelings we want (or maybe don't know yet we want, but will like being) evoked. And they can even be "negative"/"bad" feelings -- why do people go to scary movies? Because they want to be scared/thrilled/whatever. Art is about how strongly and satisfyingly you can evoke that while doing it in new, unique ways.

But evoking feelings no one wants is not "art".

Another example of when I think of "artist" is an interior decorator. I may know some of what I like, but others of it I may not (yet). I may like some things, but may make the mistake of choosing too much of it or combining it with something whereupon it doesn't work for me, and I might not be sure why. Contracting the services of such a person, you're looking for someone with a strong sense aesthetics. Someone who knows when to pour it on, and when subtlety is called for, when "less is more". And what clashes and should be left out. Even "bad taste" can be okay -- a certain restaurant chain has wonderfully tacky decor.

But inappropriateness is never "art".

So I guess "art" to me, like the spirit of the Christmas season, is the act of "giving". It's not taking, or selfishness, or self-centeredness. It's about doing what may deeply interest oneself, and may ultimately be towards one's own personal satisfaction, but also certainly hoping that others will enjoy it as well.

So now I may have, ahem, painted myself into a bit of a corner. Is it "art" if some deeply troubled person paints something and then locks it away somewhere? No, that's called therapy. You may admire say the expressiveness and creativity of the painting of some deranged fellow, but the most I would call that I think is "accidental art". As in once in a while I take a brilliant photograph.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

On what it is to be an "artist"

Comments Filter:
  • This is repetition
    • by rk ( 6314 )
      Sorry for spamming your journal, but I had a much better post for it, but there is apparently now a repetition filter that thought there was too much repetition in it. I have since lost the post. More to come in my journal.
  • And they can even be "negative"/"bad" feelings

    But evoking feelings no one wants is not "art".

    Make up your mind.

    But inappropriateness is never "art".

    Ah, Not a fan of Lenny Bruce then? Richard Pryor? Andy Kaufman? Bill Hicks? Rodney Dangerfield? Inappropriateness is in the beholder's eye.

    "art" to the act of "giving"

    The best metric I've been able to come up with as to what constitutes art is two fold:

    -Authenticity. As in, is this something the artist cares and feels passion
    • Make up your mind.

      Read it again, this time with the intervening context.

      Inappropriateness is in the beholder's eye.

      Inappropriateness isn't near as squishy as you make it out to be. It's inappropriate in the context of the Whitehouse's/a national Christmas tree and the spirit of the Christmas season and when an election is already over and an outgoing prez has only a month or so left in office anyways to be a little cunt and ungraciously and self-servingly submit an "impeach Bush" tree ornament. There's a ti

  • But it probably WAS protected free speech.

    Having said that, I see nothing in the First Amendment requiring the federal government or the President to pay for the publication of my free Pudge is right as well.

Real Programmers think better when playing Adventure or Rogue.