Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I said, "Everyone's an artist" - and that goes for architects and engineers right down to the little old lady who still makes her quilts by hand (um - that's not me). People work in the media that inspires them, draws out their passions and influences their lives as well as others'. The artists I know are multifaceted, not just involved in 'crafts' - and the commenter about the galleries not liking crafts has obviously never been to one. The metalworkers, the potters, the sculptors, all have a place in a REAL gallery. The woman I bought this house from is an acclaimed artist; her paintings and sketches sell because they inspire, and she has a yearly show that is well attended. She is also a real estate agent and rides the horse that she keeps in my corral, can herd cattle, butcher a kill, or raise a garden with calm equanimity. We also have many emails and conversations between us about politics; she is a conservative.
The view that artists are only those who live solely for art, have to be of a liberal mindset to feel anything, and are the only true ones is a popular myth promoted by the uneducated, inexperienced, gullible, and mindless, who desperately want to, have to, believe that they are part of an elite group. They're not, and this little fact inflames them to the point of insensibility.
Several years ago I participated, along with about 300 artists, in an art fair in Chicago, the annual "Around The Coyote". One couple set up their table with various ceramic vases, bowls, candle holders, etc. Shortly before the fair opened, the administrators talked to the couple, explaining that crafts, although nicely done, didn't fit in the fair. The couple packed up their works and departed. Over the years I participated in several other exhibits in galleries, but none had any crafts.
Primarily, crafts have a decorative or ornamental function, and are nice to look at, but rarely provoke any thoughts.
No - I disagree. A conservative works for a living because s/he refuses to demand government support for his/her art, but lets it stand on its own - and knows durned well that it won't, because customers are fickle and the economy really does starve real artists. It's called practicality - something true conservatives have an abundance of, as evinced by their choices. No one 'owes' them anything for being talented - if they appreciate it they will pay for it; if not, the government and taxpayers aren't and shouldn't be required to. (Not talking about neo-cons here, but true conservatives.)
I think you're missing the point... and do you really think all "liberal artists" and musicians are government funded? You are ranting about a very specific issue, when the majority of artists/musicians - whether liberal or conservative - are either struggling or making money the legitimate way (through sales of their work, paid gigs, etc). I am a liberal myself, and play 8 instruments semi-professionally, in addition to being a writer and photographer. I have NEVER received any funding from the government, and rarely even get paid a stipend for my performances... boy, wouldn't that be nice! So while you might have a point about government-funded art (although I happen to disagree), that really isn't what is being discussed here. One can create art & music without funding, and it does seem the liberal side produces more overall. That isn't necessarily a good or bad thing, it's just something that appeals more to liberal-minded folks. I'm sure there are many fields dominated by conservatives, so it does even out eventually.
P.S. I do have a professional day-job, before you ask - LOL.
Though Bohemian originally described more of a liberal philosophy, I think it's evolved more then conservative or liberal. I use the word for the bums who equate being poor (and suffering) for their art makes it more authentic or creative. That's another thread to me though, because I don't think being poor means that art is more real, good, or from the soul...
The way I see it, the majority of artists are liberal simply because of the rejection of a "traditional" lifestyle. This is not saying that there are no conservative artists, my old drama teacher was conservative...they not only teach drama, but do community theater, as well as record music. However, within the conservative community, there is more emphasis on a traditional, suburban life. Mother and father and child. Art is meant to challenge and expand the norms of our life. This is why San Francisco is an art hub, whereas nearby Milbrae or Walnut Creek is not. There are plenty of great conservative artists, but they are the minority of conservatives. Go on any college campus and ask art students their political leaning, they will be more liberal. This rejection of a mold is the nexus of both art and liberalism. Conservatives are more into CONSERVING cultural norms (hence the term conservative).
Several years ago I participated, along with about 300 artists, in an art fair in Chicago, the annual "Around The Coyote". One couple set up their table with various ceramic vases, bowls, candle holders, etc. Shortly before the fair opened, the administrators talked to the couple, explaining that crafts, although nicely done, didn't fit in the fair. The couple packed up their works and departed. Over the years I participated in several other exhibits in galleries, but none had any crafts.
Primarily, crafts have a decorative or ornamental function, and are nice to look at, but rarely provoke any thoughts.
Yes, there is a difference between 'craft' and "art" - or, is there? A "potter" I work with doesn't merely throw pots, but sculpts incredible art that does evoke a feeling... points of passion, depths of curvatures, and not cute and useful. The art of clay, or the art of metal (which I am just starting to get into) to express emotion rather than simple heart-shaped candle holders for Valentine's Day sales - they are different and the former may inspire, the latter may just be 'cute' but both are art, as long as they are not put out in mass quantities with the same colors and shapes as 'the book says', right?
But even then - one of my favorite East Coast sculptors is very prolific, designs 8-10 a year - and he makes a mold of the first one, and produces a set number of them, then breaks the mold. Artists paint or sketch - then print or duplicate the art they produce for a set number of printings. So is reproduction a qualifier of 'good' or 'bad' art? Who is self-justified enough to make that determination of what is and isn't art?
There are certain rules of course that make art displays either acceptable or not within a certain predetermined context or showing. Of course the little old lady who makes quilts probably has never been in a majority of New York shows... but then again, there are a few who have. This devolves into the question - what is art? Grandma Moses or Warhol? Dali or D'Angelo? It depends on what time period or where they are produced, as to whether or not they are accepted by the self-assigned elite, or must wait years (sometimes never) for acceptance. If the art world goes into regression due to the financial world, and people start looking more for 'comfort' in their art than for eclectic, the mood will shift again, and the crowd will seek and follow more traditional art forms than the unusual. We may see a resurgence in Danish or Amish art again, or Rockwellian productions! Then the pendulum will swing again, as people come out of the recessionary mindset and feel more avant-garde. And so it will go, in music, architecture, painting, photography, all art forms...
My point is simply this; that just because one group says "That isn't art! THIS is!" that group is always replaced by another, and another, and still another. To say that "This is art, nothing else!" is to limit one's expansion of experiences... which is detrimental to an artist's growth and expansion of his craft. Those who insist such things betray their own small mindedness and refusal to consider anything else but their own experiences as valid.
I am East Coast trained, and my 'potter' friend is West Coast trained. We discussed this at length one evening; she believes that East Coast artists are more interested in the variation of intricate forms of a subset of defined shapes, while West Coast artists are more interested in 'pushing the envelope' of all shapes and definitions of space; less defined. After several hours of comparisons of different artists' works, and much debate (sans liquor), we decided that it was possibly true, in our experiences. But neither one is wrong, or should be ignored or disrespected, by the other. Both are expressions of emotion to inspire emotion, which is what art is.
Slapping paint on canvas, welding parts together, or poking holes in a clay mound is only art if it conveys. That's why, IMHO, A lot of 'art', many structures, most movies and some music today are not art - they are so much disjointed noise and/or visuals that, like masturbation, temporarily relieve an itch wthout satisfing a real and ongoing, lasting need. Have we really become that superficial, when internet intercourse replaces human contact, or where uninspired and uninspiring art is produced simply to make a buck, and cannot stand the test of time and emotional growth? Real art reminds us of our faults and foibles, and inspires/comforts/enlightens/enriches us to become what we are, or more than what we are...
That's why, IMHO, A lot of 'art', many structures, most movies and some music today are not art - they are so much disjointed noise and/or visuals that, like masturbation, temporarily relieve an itch wthout satisfing a real and ongoing, lasting need. Have we really become that superficial, when internet intercourse replaces human contact, or where uninspired and uninspiring art is produced simply to make a buck, and cannot stand the test of time and emotional growth? Real art reminds us of our faults and foibles, and inspires/comforts/enlightens/enriches us to become what we are, or more than what we are...
You were making sense when you were talking about how it isn't good to parse what is and isn't true art, then you bomb with this. Fast Food art is art albeit of varying quality, but art nonetheless.
Believe it or not, I once knew a gay man who termed himself "a radical conservative" who was one of the most creative people I ever met. He could write, create art and do faux restoration type work for historic buildings. I never did inquire as to what comprised "a radical conservative" but he was a nice guy. Seemed very open-minded. We just never discussed politics...
SCGranny
Great post! I didn't want to quote it all only to save space.
Oddly enough, you mentioned Warhol, an artist that I never liked nor understood his works, and considered as shallow. Andy Warhol is quoted as saying, "Art is whatever you can get away with." I think that held true for him and many others.
I've had a number of thoughts on why I disagree with much of what you say in the OP. Most of those ideas have already been expressed by others who have posted before I checked out this thread. I will say that I think your original post has too much of an either/or tone. You may want to work on developing your own skill at thinking in terms of complexities if you really see things as much in the way that has the left and the right so neatly categorized as either really interested in serious art or not as the original post seems to indicate.
I will also say that I can see why some have found the original post offensive. That either/or tone I referred to above seems very much to involve the idea that "liberals" categorically are interested in expression of deep and complex ideas while "conservatives" are categorically interested in shallow entertainment that requires no really intricate thinking (perhaps with the subtle, but not really so subtle, implication that "conservatives" are not interested in such intricacies because they are kinda dumb, and incapable of such deep thought).
Casual observation would seem to indicate that there are more "liberals" than "conservatives" in publicly visible positions in the arts, but the number of exceptions, many of them listed in several posts on this thread, indicates that it is far from categorically true that arts-oriented creativity is rigidly linked, or not, to any political leaning.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So while you might have a point about government-funded art (although I happen to disagree), that really isn't what is being discussed here. One can create art & music without funding, and it does seem the liberal side produces more overall. That isn't necessarily a good or bad thing, it's just something that appeals more to liberal-minded folks. I'm sure there are many fields dominated by conservatives, so it does even out eventually.
