Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Prince · 12-19-2003, 10:09 AM

A friend of mine, an artist in her own right and quite so, claimed that a piece has no meaning if the artist does not understand it. And I quote, "I always considered it most important for the creator to understand his own art. If the artist does not understand his art, it is meaningless, even if someone else finds some interpretation of it. It's merely an object; it's manufactured, not created".

Well, I thought about that a bit... I'd like your opinions on that. See, to me, personally, art can be a reflection of its creator's self, but that does not mean that art is self-explanatory to even its creator. Or that the creator can understand it at all. I believe this because of how I feel about most of my work, which I consider to be art, for the most part. For me, art is but a product of a creative process, and it is that creative process that provides me with joy, relief, and in some cases - healing.

However, I rarely understand the outcome. I can look at whatever pictures I've taken/made, or read poems of mine, but I generally do not understand them. This is more apparent to me after a little bit of time has passed since a piece was created. I can try to explain the emotion of a poem, for a while after I've just written it, but give it a few months and I'll be lucky to recognize it as my own, much less be able to interpret it. At that point, the piece has lost its meaning for me, the little meaning it had to begin with.

For me, the creative process is where "it's at". I'm glad if someone can appreciate the outcome, and it is flattering if and when they do, but in the end I think I prefer not to understand too much. Think of it like this...you have all this pain and anger inside you, all this blackness, all this disgust and shit, and you [creative process] get it out of yourself and throw it onto a canvas, vomit it all out of yourself [relief]. You can then let others see the outcome [art?], which is your creation, but now that it is out of you, and no longer IN you, it does not have the same meaning, you get detached from it, and basically all you see is a pile of shit, trash, junk throw on a canvas. If someone else appreciates it for its aesthetic values or whatnot, great. But the ties are severed, and there's nothing there to understand.

12-19-2003, 10:09 AM	#1 (permalink)
Prince /nɑndəsˈkrɪpt/ Location: LV-426	The process, the outcome. The meaning? A friend of mine, an artist in her own right and quite so, claimed that a piece has no meaning if the artist does not understand it. And I quote, "I always considered it most important for the creator to understand his own art. If the artist does not understand his art, it is meaningless, even if someone else finds some interpretation of it. It's merely an object; it's manufactured, not created". Well, I thought about that a bit... I'd like your opinions on that. See, to me, personally, art can be a reflection of its creator's self, but that does not mean that art is self-explanatory to even its creator. Or that the creator can understand it at all. I believe this because of how I feel about most of my work, which I consider to be art, for the most part. For me, art is but a product of a creative process, and it is that creative process that provides me with joy, relief, and in some cases - healing. However, I rarely understand the outcome. I can look at whatever pictures I've taken/made, or read poems of mine, but I generally do not understand them. This is more apparent to me after a little bit of time has passed since a piece was created. I can try to explain the emotion of a poem, for a while after I've just written it, but give it a few months and I'll be lucky to recognize it as my own, much less be able to interpret it. At that point, the piece has lost its meaning for me, the little meaning it had to begin with. For me, the creative process is where "it's at". I'm glad if someone can appreciate the outcome, and it is flattering if and when they do, but in the end I think I prefer not to understand too much. Think of it like this...you have all this pain and anger inside you, all this blackness, all this disgust and shit, and you [creative process] get it out of yourself and throw it onto a canvas, vomit it all out of yourself [relief]. You can then let others see the outcome [art?], which is your creation, but now that it is out of you, and no longer IN you, it does not have the same meaning, you get detached from it, and basically all you see is a pile of shit, trash, junk throw on a canvas. If someone else appreciates it for its aesthetic values or whatnot, great. But the ties are severed, and there's nothing there to understand. __________________ Who is John Galt?