This is anathema to me. I’m not big on emotionalism. This is really manipulation. And again, it’s letting others dictate what you should be writing.
You asked opinion, what we thought of art and I believe art much like beauty, as it's in the eye of the beholder. You say that it's a travesty and that I'm letting others dictate what I right, it is quite the opposite. I write what I want to write, I aim to tell the story that I want to tell. I know people may not like my story, and my works may never get published. That does not bother me in the slightest. I am happy to tell my story the way I want, but seeing your work cause someone to feel, gives you a sense of gratification that you get from nothing else. How is that manipulation, how is it a travesty that I find it humbling and touching that my art can make someone feel.
To your other statement, yes all these things illicit emotion from people and no it is not art. The way you talk, you come across as if you think emotion has no place in Art. If you truly believe this, then what is the point of art if it is not a source of emotion.
We are governed by emotion, whether you are a poet, musician or painter. A priest or a serial killer. Whether your a mother, father, sister, brother. If you have pets, your house, your belongings. Everything that we have, buy or do, GOOD or BAD is dictated by the emotions that we FEEL. Art is emotion, whether it's causing someone to feel or the very act of creation itself. I read in another thread that you draw and write. Why? Why do you do these things, what makes you an Artist. Why are you driven to create these constructs of your imagination.
The very definition of art....The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination.
Expression....what is the definition of Expression...The process of making known one's thoughts or feelings.
Emotion is art. Even if your the only one who feels that emotion.
So if by your logic, emotion is manipulation and has no place in art. Than how do you find the drive to write and draw. What force makes you want to produce a work of art and why?
In your opening post you say that other people's art is factitious and not deserving of the term 'art'. I ask you, what makes you think you have the right to tell other's that their creations are worthless. Because you don't feel anything when you see them, because you think they are dirty old pictures or when you read the words you find no heart in them.
That does not mean they aren't works of art. They are expressions of a singular person. A person who exists only once in a life time. We are not privy to the inner workings of most's artists, we may speculate but never know why Leonardo De Vinci painted the Mona Lisa. We know that it was not some silly painting he did overnight on the whim of others. It's obvious you don't agree with how some of us see Art, and we don't agree with you.
But that is your opinion. Everyone is entitled to it.
But in the long run. Art is the expression of one's inner emotion, no matter how you see it. So even if your in the opinion that many of the greatest art works in the world are travesties, that does not make them any less important.
You contradict yourself in your opening argument. You say that we have been lead to believe that art hanging in galleries are better than works we can produce. And that they are not, then you say it's a travesty that people believe our great world art is better than art on sites like Deviantart. You are doing the exact same thing you are trying to argue against. You are objectifying other people's art as unworthy of being art. Why, because they became popular?
I ask the question again, if you think it's so terrible that people tell us that popular art is better than ours. What gives you the right to call other people's art work, popular or not, nonsense.
Edited by krypter3, 14 March 2013 - 04:21 PM.