August journals

journal 1

Tolstoy’s definition of art essentially said that it has to be something that has clarity and sincerity, meaning that it can’t be given restriction or be done for my money and that its creates an emotion in its viewers. I agree to some extent with the sincerity piece, but I don’t think it’s necessarily clear what restriction s is on painting and if someone was ordered to do something. I think there is more of a spectrum of external influence on a work. There is a lot of in between things from artist can be given absolute freedom to create what he wants or he can be told exactly what to do and must follow precise instructions. An artist may be asked to produce a piece on the topic of war, which is broad enough that the artist can still put his own creativity and emotions on war into it, that could be considered art. An artist could be asked to produce something about a specific war as Picasso did for the Guernica, the artist can still be sincere, and it has the possibility to be art. I think giving an artist a topic is like just asking a person to answer a question, a question might be asked by someone else but the authors is completely sincere in his response. I think only when an artist is asked to create a designated emotion through the piece that sincerity is lost. I don’t think clarity is totally possible in art either. I believe art is partly based on our innate desire to create and when making art in this manner the artist sometimes doesn’t know any sense of meaning and message but also in this manner art is sincere. There’s often discussion on how outside forces interfere with the sincerity with the piece but think the artists thoughts and being over deliberate in creating a meaning, detract from the sincerity. Because thoughts mold and dilute initial creative urges which are the most sincere art. I think clarity isn’t important at all in art because usefully people don’t understand art. Often times in the attempt to be clear artists are obvious the art work has lost its entire mystique which is part of the beauty of this.

 Journal 2

Meaning in art is a very obscure topic. Because much of the time the artist doesn’t know the precise meaning or the meaning evolves with in the span of creating a piece. Not to say there is never any meaning, there usually is some but it is more and unconscious meaning often times and is only worked out by the artist if they are able to understand themselves well. The creative process doesn’t often work in a logical manner which would yield a clear meaning in most cases. Making a song or writing a poem on drawing a picture doesn’t begin with what precise message, it begins with a creative impulse that an artist may or may not eventually understand. Sometimes ideas just inexplicably come to the artist. Meaning I think is a mark of social obligation sometimes. An audience’s pressure on an artist to turn a sincere obscure notion into something clear that might not be honest or accurate. Art I believe is an innate escape from order societal functions and our civilized way communicating  and adding a clear meaning so that the society can understand just simply doesn’t work most of the time. I think the audience art entitled to make their own meaning, this also gives them some freedom to react as they please, which gives them the same sense of liberation as the artist would have for creating it. The meaning might not be what the artist felt themselves, but I believe the best art provokes thought in the viewer and as the artist would react to some event in their life or in their mind the audience deserves to react to the art.

journal 3

If art is the greatest form of self fulfillment why is it that so many artists who spend their days supposedly becoming self fulfilled are mentally unstable?  It could be that mentally unstable people have creative capabilities as think in a unique way or have had mental obstacles to overcome and creativity was created by them essentially finding a way to deal with their own minds and the world around them. Or they just have a lot of emotions to express. In this case it would suggest that artistic talent is some positive outcome from mental instability and in that case mentally unstable people would pursue art so a lot of artists would be mentally unstable. But could this suffering artist ideal come from culture. In ancient Rome I think it was apparently artists and creators would have “geniuses.” A genius was a spirit that told them what to do. And their artist weren’t depressed. In ancient Rome Ideas came from an “external” source, and the artist wouldn’t have to take full responsibility for the work or get the full credit. Contrastingly in our society, we take full responsibility for our “bad ideas” and accept full credit for our “brilliant ideas.” in this manner the artist’s ego can be inflated excessively and then be crushed instantly. In the subjective nature of art when some times you have no idea why a critic will call work bad a good, this is an increasingly unstable environment isn’t good for the artists mental well being. And when the artist has such a high responsibility for their work and ideas, their work literally becomes their character in the eyes of the audience, and there is an increase in pressure to make something. And say if a writer has a writers block they blame themselves entirely when they cannot breach their limits they feel internal failure. The creative process it self is often irrational and sometimes you cant force yourself to make something original like the way you could force your self to work harder. It’s difficult to explain this to an audience and accept it yourself. It could also just be caused by poverty for some, but many artist get rich and are still depressed which suggests its not poverty.