4art.com

Creative Global Network for the Visual Arts

I am just wondering other peoples ideas on why we create in the first place. If there is no audience to experience the art then is it just therapy? Freud states that we are fulfilling an unfulfilled desire and that we are producing a physical representation of our fears and anxieties. How right is he? I make because I love doing it, but is that enough? And what is it exactly that I am giving to society? Would be really interested to hear your views.

Views: 55

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Have a look at Idiosynchronism
Why do you decide that it needs to be done? its not that someone or something is going to suffer if you dont. who are you doing it for? do we all just make art for ourselves? surely if you are doing it for yourself and you feel that it needs to be done its expressing something of u, which is therapy.
"its not that someone or something is going to suffer if you dont"

I beg to differ. I often withhold my art as an act of revenge on a cold and unjustice society.

Leen said:
Why do you decide that it needs to be done? its not that someone or something is going to suffer if you dont. who are you doing it for? do we all just make art for ourselves? surely if you are doing it for yourself and you feel that it needs to be done its expressing something of u, which is therapy.
do you feel that you are giving something to people? I just find it hard to know why i do something. I love making my work. i am not trying to do anything i just love the processes and the materials. but if i dont show it to anyone is it art? there is no dialogue or transference of thought. nothing has happened other than my enjoyment. which is therapeutic. i dont mean that there is anything to heal, but there is something that requires the involvement of the senses which is therapy.
so you make art for fun or excercise? do you feel like you are being productive? i get the mental exercise. good point. is it what we should dedicate our entire lives to? a mental excercise for ourselves.
i disagree that therapy is for the sick. i think that therapy is simply an adjective to describe processes of dealing with emotion and senses.
so would you say that it is more acceptable to say that art is the mature word for play?

it is just something that we enjoy and it stimulates us, and that is all there is to it? i guess it just seems a bit too simple if that's all there is to it.
sorry to go on but why do you think play is complex. i agree but would like to see what you say.

i think beauty is a tricky one because it doesnt have a clear definition anymore. beauty is something that has a pleasurable aesthetic, but that is pretty undefinable.
as uv said its fulfilling an inner desire once u see it then i guess its done moving on swiftly as for me i put my imagination into my art
I've kinda come to a conclusion that its play, exploration, therapy and truth. i dont mean that to sound cliche, and maybe i am restricting myself to my work. I hope not.
but i still think that we do it for ourselves. there is a natural instinct that drives us to create that we follow. it is inherent in us, so as simply following a natural instinct there is value in our creations. but that is weird! questions with no answers!!!
Perhaps art making is an example of Salvatore Ambulando; it will be resolved walking. It's kinda like when I was a kid the idea of an audience was not in evidence. The making informs my existence in a way that thought will never do. From this state of making; this state of quiet observation, everything all at once is within the grasp of the human organism. The conflict arising from a process that is by it's own definition one of fragmentation, dissapates. Turning thought on itself, which is something it really hates to do, leads to very simple observations; why has science and technology made extrodinary discoveries while we just keep getting more efficient at murder? Thougt's domain of validity oviously lies in the linear, time binding realm of the sciences. It falls flat on it's face outside of this domain of validity.

I think Sister Wendy said art never gets better, it just changes.

The fear generated by a near accident on your bike or in your car isn't, I feel, the fear you speak of. If I'm not mistaken the fear you speak of is a psychological fear, a product of your thought process. For me in my art making I'm interested in the production of this fear and less in it's seemingly infinite content.

This is just what I'm up to and in no way think anyone else should adhere to it. This is what art makng for me is about, exploration.

I could never figure out if Ben Shaw was being ironic or straight up when he said the content of contentless art is contentlessness.
I think we make art because we know we cannot stay.
Does it really matter? The fact you are being creative is the main thing, you should be an artist for yourself and the development of you as an individual and the journey you take each time you do it. If you are creating art hoping that you will be successful and an audience will view your work you are in it for the wrong reasons. We should be creating for ourselves and mastering our own practice it shouldnt matter about an audience unless this is what you want.
Maybe people who create work want their work to be seen as this may be therapeutic for them as creators, that their creation is being viewed and they get satisfaction from this.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Members

My links

Groups

© 2019   Created by 4art Media.   Powered by

Links | Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service