Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (80679)	6/2/2000 3:32:00 PM
From: Rick Julian	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

IMO, ideas, perception, and experience are the blended fuel of cognition. So any opinion I might hold (about art, for example) would be based on this matrix. I think you and Coby essentially share the same page. My take on the art appreciation discussion comes from my experience as a creator. There have been times I've created kitsch (sometimes with ironic intention), while at others, I've created "art". "Art", for me, is about the act of creatively manifesting an idea--giving it form as a poem, a script, a song, a sculpture . . . Only the artist ever knows how closely that attempt to manifest corresponds with their intention. Sometimes you get there and consider it realized, and sometimes you don't, and consider it an exercise in manifesting, or an exploration of an idea that, later, will be more fully realized. Many times I've done work that I considered relatively weak and unrealized, but people have gone crazy over it. On those occasions I wonder if they're responding to something other than my core intent, or if my core intent (as I understood it) wasn't what I was trying to say at all--that I had convinced myself, for example, I was working on a song about injustice, when in fact I was expressing my turmoil over the notion of forgiveness,and people picked up on the later and it resonated with them on some "true" level. IMO, critics are rarely correct when they dissect the motivations or "messaging" of the artist. They can write erudite critiques with a strong sense of internal logic, and comparative support, but they can't know what was happening in the creator's internal world then the piece was created. Heck, many times the artist can't put into words what they're trying to say, and that's why they use another language: music, painting, etc. It seems ironic that one would put too much stock in written critiques about the "meaning" of a piece of art when the creator himself might not be able to verbalize it. Also, "accidents", rather than intention, are often artists' greatest friends, and most critics never allow for accidents.