On Art - Voices - An Opening

[D Akey]

Thanks, Screenpainter. Seemed like it was something we all would enjoy and maybe get something out of. . . and furthermore an opportunity to be a bit of a forum upon which to share our own thoughts, and compare notes and so forth.

And you have definitely delivered. I really like what you have written. Is there a common thread among us artists that would make us pursue Art? As you speak of it: Aspiration to flights of perfection, perhaps by dropping the more clunky outer accretions that weigh us down? Something like journaling the inner voyage. Giving advantage to the inner landscape?

I have personally found that there is more that unites us inside than out, and on some level I think the hope is that others can see what we're getting at. I guess the contrast between inner and outer makes the spark, especially if one is wanting to share the ideal.

Anyway, you got me musing.

Brilliant comment. Thanks for that.

And those are very cool links. I see someone is such a beautiful place painting away and it sorta makes me ill from jealousy, hahaha. I used to go to places just like that and paint and sketch. Always wished there had been a community like at ArtRage in those days where you could make a couple calls and a bunch of artists would load up their cars with their paints and head out together to share their versions of the same place.

[Juz]

So glad to see this thread come back to life.

For me, my personal philosophy with regard to art goes something like:-

If they LOVE it, great.
If they HATE it, wonderful.

Why? because in both these instances i have engaged the viewer and evoked a deep emotional response.

If they walk straight past it, then i have failed as an artist.

[gxhpainter]

D Akey.. what a wonderful thread.. I have had a great morning checking out the links and reading the commentary.. I absolutely love the idea of the conversation and sharing... like the best espresso coffee house in the city, where friends share and talk about all forms of creativity, the joy and anquish that comes with that act.

I particularly liked Elizabeth Gilbert's video (from Hinket's link) "on nurturing creativity" and PD's link both really exciting and uplifting pieces..

[Lima]

Sorry

[Juz]

LOL

Aint that the truth, hehehe

It's perfect Oriane

[D Akey]

So glad to see this thread come back to life.

For me, my personal philosophy with regard to art goes something like:-

If they LOVE it, great.
If they HATE it, wonderful.

Why? because in both these instances i have engaged the viewer and evoked a deep emotional response.

If they walk straight past it, then i have failed as an artist.

Hi Juz,

That's a can of worms, isn't it. It's a huge issue with public opinion and tastes and what motivates people to liking something.

It's interesting with people who are following the paths where Taste is the primary evaluation. The real value of artists like Van Gogh and Matisse ultimately showed. And ultimately the found their audience and consciousness changed.

Writers, scientists, visionaries. . . we've heard the stories and applaud them if they are left standing after all the negativity that gets directed at them.

There is the element that successful visionaries are able to deliver the goods. If one can override negative opinions with success, then people begin to take notice and change their opinions.

I guess there are several types of people who would willingly take on the role of 'the outsider', just like there are various reasons people embrace Art. Some have Art because they like it. Some hang Art as a statement, sort of a shorthand of what they're about. Others use Art for the investment or an artist's work becomes something of a product line or to sell something other than the Art.

It's a can of worms. However, knowing how people react can be used to one's advantage. And strong reactions will get one noticed. And then it can be taken to the next level with some deliberateness. Puts you in the driver's seat, where you belong.

Thanks for posting!

[D Akey]

Sorry

Hahahahaha! You're quite the Art spelunker, doctor!

[D Akey]

D Akey.. what a wonderful thread.. I have had a great morning checking out the links and reading the commentary.. I absolutely love the idea of the conversation and sharing... like the best espresso coffee house in the city, where friends share and talk about all forms of creativity, the joy and anquish that comes with that act.

I particularly liked Elizabeth Gilbert's video (from Hinket's link) "on nurturing creativity" and PD's link both really exciting and uplifting pieces..

Very glad to see ya coming 'round. I would think this is right up your alley being the wide ranging artist that you are. Please toss anything you care to into the mix.

Yeah, aside from the enjoyment of hearing people talking about the creative process, I've found it also is, as they say, news you can use. . . even if it's just to get pumped up.

[Lima]

Among the many who have speculated on the intersection of art, spirit and consciousness, Schopenhauer offers some helpful opinions in his The World as Will and Idea.

“Genius, then, consists, according to our explanation, in the capacity for knowing, independently of the principle of sufficient reason, not individual things, which have their existence only in their relations, but the Ideas of such things, and of being oneself the correlative of the Idea, and thus no longer an individual, but the pure subject of knowledge.

Yet this faculty must exist in all men in a smaller and different degree; for if not, they would be just as incapable of enjoying works of art as of producing them; they would have no susceptibility for the beautiful or the sublime; indeed, these words could have no meaning for them.

We must therefore assume that there exists in all men this power of knowing the Ideas in things, and consequently of transcending their personality for the moment, unless indeed there are some men who are capable of no aesthetic pleasure at all.

The man of genius excels ordinary men only by possessing this kind of knowledge in a far higher degree and more continuously. Thus, while under its influence he retains the presence of mind which is necessary to enable him to repeat in a voluntary and intentional work what he has learned in this manner; and this repetition is the work of art.

Through this he communicates to others the Idea he has grasped. This Idea remains unchanged and the same, so that aesthetic pleasure is one and the same whether it is called forth by a work of art or directly by the contemplation of nature and life.

The work of art is only a means of facilitating the knowledge in which this pleasure consists. That the Idea comes to us more easily from the work of art than directly from nature and the real world, arises from the fact that the artist, who knew only the Idea, no longer the actual, has
reproduced in his work the pure Idea, has abstracted it from the actual, omitting all disturbing accidents.

The artist lets us see the world through his eyes. That he has these eyes, that he knows the inner nature of things apart from all their relations, is the gift of genius, is inborn; but that he is able to lend us this gift, to let us see with his eyes, is acquired, and is the technical side of art.”
Schopenhauer

[D Akey]

Brilliant. That is very well stated.

The first paragraph, outside of the discussion of Visual Art for a moment, if you will indulge me - Dr. Lima, I am wondering whether that would cross over to the sciences like, in your case, Medicine? I have heard that Medicine is an Art, certainly it is a Science. But for the traditional practitioner who is dealing with something normal textbook, they would be less open to merely intuiting a diagnosis, or would they? In your career, how much were you free to leap to a conclusion? I imagine that diagnosticians were more in that category.

There is a TV show called House where the method they write into the script is that he and his team are geniuses given difficult symptoms to work with to find what is wrong with the patient. It's a mystery show basically. But what they do, based on their vast knowledge, is when they suspect a problem, they medicate in that direction to then watch what happens. So they do in fact proceed based on evidence. I assume that real medical people frequently do the same to some degree.

And I don't hear that Schopenhauer is talking about this category of scientific genius, in that he says:
“Genius, then, consists, according to our explanation, in the capacity for knowing, independently of the principle of sufficient reason, not individual things, which have their existence only in their relations, but the Ideas of such things, and of being oneself the correlative of the Idea, and thus no longer an individual, but the pure subject of knowledge.

How much of this kind of genius did you find applied to your work as a surgeon? And did your Artistic and Poetic interests balance the rigors you needed to adhere to in the Medical world?

I do find his comments fascinating. I especially appreciate the part you have in blue at the conclusion of the quote. Thanks for bringing this forward for us to read.