Motivation and 'Pure' Art

I found this image on google and wondered: Is pure art selfless art? We briefly mentioned "motivation" in class recently when discussing talent and skill. Does motivation play a part in determining the validity or value of art? If the reinforcement behind creating a piece of art is external--recognition, money, conflict, etc--does that make the artist or art object less legitimate than if the reinforcement were internal? Is art for others more valuable than art made for the artist? Is art that simply exists for the soul purpose of being art (rather than to make something else happen) more real?
----
The following are a few of my favorite quotes on art:

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
Dilbert, created by Scott Adams

Fairy-tales interest me as a manifestation of pure art, perhaps the very first instance of art detaching itself from real life, and also because - like pure art - they enhance reality, remaking it in their own likeness, separating good from evil, and bringing all fears and terrors to a happy conclusion.
Abran Tertz, A Voice from the Chorus.

I do not literally paint that table, but the emotion it produces upon me.
Henri Matisse

I feel that art has something to do with the achievement of stillness in the midst of chaos. A stillness which characterizes prayer too, and the eye of the storm. I think art has something to do with an arrest of attention in the midst of distraction.
Saul Bellow


I paint objects as I think them, not as I see them.
Pablo Picasso

I think that 95 percent of what passes for art in this world is complete and utter shit. And 4 of the other 5 percent is shit with an asterisk. But oh, that 1 percent makes you proud to be a human, doesn't it?
Dennis Miller

Response to Kim

How much impact do you think theory has on art?

In the article that Kim posted, Storr writes, "...even though you may share a vocabulary, you don’t share at all the same kind of generative process or goals." In response to Kim's question, I think that theory is separate from application in any field, including art, for just this reason. The process of art is creation. It is physical. The process of theorizing about art is thinking about how and why, not necessarily just the creation. Artists work to produce a product. Yes, their ultimate goal may be cognitive in that they desire an emotional reaction or thought-provoking result, but art is art is art. And theory is theory is theory. While theory does help explain art, I don't think all consumers of art consider theory. Actually, those who do consider theory are likely to be the minority. Theories change just as art does. So what is considered art in one context, in one place, at one time, may not be considered art in another. I'm not sure that art and theory will ever be parallel because of the temporal nature of both.

Balance

"Both. I sometimes feel I am right, but do not know it. When two expeditions of scientists went to test my theory I was convinced they ... I'm enough of an artist to draw freely on my imagination, which I think is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."—Albert Einstein

While I do believe that imagination is imperative in artistic development, talent, performance, and lifestyle, I'm not quite sure that I agree wholeheartedly with Einstein's claim. Why? I believe that imagination coexist and interact in a similar manner as the subjective and objective. They are--if you will--magnetic: opposing cognitive abilities whose polarities both repel and attract. As mentioned in Taylor's essay, Knowledge is public. Imagination is private. Imagination provides escape. Knowledge is reality. Knowledge facilities community and continuity, while imagination facilitates change. Imagination is grounded in knowledge. As Buddhists, the Chinese, and even Isaac Newton believe, balance is key. Quantity isn't necessarily best. As for art, I believe that these concepts can be applied and that imagination and knowledge are both necessary in the creative process. What does everyone else think?

Response (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)

In her most recent post, Gina asked in reference to the film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, "Do you think it is safe for a procedure such as this to take place? Should science take over to force knowledge to be more important that imagination, memory, and hope that a imaginings of yesterday could become realities of today?" In response, I disagree with this particular procedure on the sole claim that as humans, we can learn from everyone and everything. It would be nice to erase painful memories or even certain people's participation in our lives so that we would shed less tears, regret less, or only react to our (happy) thoughts and memories with more happiness. But what would we learn? Without our mind's ability to substitute possibilities into past memories or future plans--creativity--would we learn anything at all? Would knowledge be of any value? I believe that every person and situation that we encounter has the potential to teach us something about ourselves and about the world. It's all just a matter of whether or not we choose to see it. Knowledge is supposed to teach us and equip us with tools for future obstacles. But I don't believe that true knowledge can exist without imagination--without the ability to think beyond what we know, hypothetically, creatively. Selective knowledge to spare our emotions (like the procedure used in Eternal Sunshine) seems like it would be robbing us of valuable knowledge and tools for emotional and personal growth. We shouldn't select what we feel or what we know. The two coincide with one another and would waiver and eventually fall without their counterpart.

What do you think?

Creativity: Necessary and Sufficient

A complimentary video to Claxton and Taylor´s essays.

¨Many people believe that creativity is something you either have or you don't, and if you are amongst the happy few, you'll use your creativity to create difficult art the general public won't understand but your creative counterparts will love.
But; creativity is of vital importance to every act you'll ever do. Art or no art. The usage of your creativity can change every action you'll ever do from ordinary to extraordinary.¨

Participation Art

Participation Art

The link above is an example of participation art at SFMOMA. "Visitors in the exhibition "The Art of Participation: 1950 to Now" at SFMOMA (November 8, 2008 - February 8, 2009). Looking back nearly 60 years across a wide spectrum of genres and media, this exhibition examined how artists have engaged members of the public as essential collaborators in the art-making process."

If anyone can be a part of it, how is this art "unique"?

Piper might argue that since humans are experiencing/participating in it, that is exactly WHY it is unique: no two will experience it the same way.

What do you think?

Black Swan Theory (inspired by Piper's mystery of the object)

A link to an essay on "Black Swan Theory"

When discussing Piper's view of performance art as unique, we mentioned that no two performers are the same regardless of how similar their technique is. The film "Black Swan" is about a dancer who must play two conflicting roles on stage. The roles begin to affect her waking life and the conflict eventually results in psychosis. The excerpt from Psychology Today suggests that humans naturally attribute order and predictability to every day events... "Because it is always comforting (and often useful, in fact) to believe that the world is a safe, predictable place. It feels good to be overly optimistic and to feel in control of one's destiny, and that everyone else is in control of his or her destiny. That if I do a,b, and c then x,y, and z will result. But if we take this comforting and illusory form of thinking overboard by under-representing uncertainty in our efforts to predict the future, we leave ourselves vulnerable to the jarring peck of the black swan." Perhaps this is what Piper means by the 'mystery of the object'. Objects are predictable. They have qualities that we expect to experience. Attributing magical powers and the ability to move us to objects, according to Piper, is naive. People, on the other hand, are far beyond predictable. Despite our more or less 'concrete' (or at least impeccably slowly changing) personalities, we are complex and ever-changing. Our actions often seem impulsive and illogical. Our personal creations--our ART--are symbolic and unique. Perhaps, as Piper suggests, the uniqueness of mankind is what makes performance art not only unique, but irreplaceable as well.