Re: what do artists get out of creating art
 

I only MSPaint for fame and satisfaction. I don't do it for the money at all.

Re: what do artists get out of creating art
 

I'm an artist, and a freelance graphic designer. I do work for financial gains, but mostly personal satisfaction, and because I'm creative. There really isn't a definite reason, other than simply enjoying to create things that stem from your ideas.

Not to mention, creating things that you personally think are cool, is cool. You're showing off your talents, and creativity.

It's like a mathematician solving problems for fun...

Re: what do artists get out of creating art
 

[ QUOTE ]
I only MSPaint for fame and satisfaction. I don't do it for the money at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen your mspaints and it's only a matter of time before the money follows the fame and satisfaction, imo.

Re: what do artists get out of creating art
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I am feeling depressed, I cannot do anything but think on a base level.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is very much the case with me. If I am not functioning at what I consider my higher levels, I find I lose a lot of what I think of as my essential identity.

[ QUOTE ]
My life, and especially my artistic motivation, is hugely effected by my moods.


[/ QUOTE ]

My artistic motivation isn't affected directly by my moods, but indirectly, because my work is darker when my mood isn't right and its marketability/general interest therefore plunges. It becomes "drawer art," just between me and the nightstand. At the same time I think it is often my better stuff and I feel more compelled to write it.

Still, a real artist, at least one who is a real enough artist to want to make a life of creating the art he loves and is willing to do whatever it takes to do so and bear the consequences, learns to work through all that and produce regardless. It's either that or get a regular job or have family money. I was like that when younger, for quite a while, and it was appallingly miserable and desperate. Then I got a regular job. So while art has been a passion and something I deeply admire and enjoy, I wouldn't call myself an artist. I'm not sure how willing I am to live without art, but I wasn't willing to die or live in eternal degraded misery for it. I'll simply say where my sympathies and empathies lie and what I enjoy most.

Re: what do artists get out of creating art
 

[ QUOTE ]
Still, a real artist, at least one who is a real enough artist to want to make a life of creating the art he loves and is willing to do whatever it takes to do so and bear the consequences, learns to work through all that and produce regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]

for me, that's the hardest part


many have mentioned the idea that you create art because you have to create art. there isn't another option. otherwise, i'd be miserable. i couldn't even fathom it.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a director watches his film 500 times to make sure its perfect, aren't we the viewer who sits down relaxingly to watch it getting more out of it than he does?

[/ QUOTE ]

no. the viewer puts less into it and that is where the inequity is not that the viewer get more out of it. as a casual filmmaker/musician/painter/writer i can say from experience that i get way more out of my creations than anyone else ever will or can, but it does come at a cost of much effort.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, there's no way a casual viewer could ever get as much out of it as the artist could. there's just too much involved in the end product that the audience would never even be able to pick up on (partly, b/c a large chunk of the process never gets to the audience, but it's rewarding to the artist who's experienced it)

Re: what do artists get out of creating art
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Still, a real artist, at least one who is a real enough artist to want to make a life of creating the art he loves and is willing to do whatever it takes to do so and bear the consequences, learns to work through all that and produce regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]

for me, that's the hardest part


many have mentioned the idea that you create art because you have to create art. there isn't another option. otherwise, i'd be miserable. i couldn't even fathom it.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a director watches his film 500 times to make sure its perfect, aren't we the viewer who sits down relaxingly to watch it getting more out of it than he does?

[/ QUOTE ]

no. the viewer puts less into it and that is where the inequity is not that the viewer get more out of it. as a casual filmmaker/musician/painter/writer i can say from experience that i get way more out of my creations than anyone else ever will or can, but it does come at a cost of much effort.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, there's no way a casual viewer could ever get as much out of it as the artist could. there's just too much involved in the end product that the audience would never even be able to pick up on (partly, b/c a large chunk of the process never gets to the audience, but it's rewarding to the artist who's experienced it)

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funy, but one of the most enjoyable moments for me is when reads or watches something I've written and gives me an intepretation I hadn't even fathomed! It's quite startling.

Re: what do artists get out of creating art
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Still, a real artist, at least one who is a real enough artist to want to make a life of creating the art he loves and is willing to do whatever it takes to do so and bear the consequences, learns to work through all that and produce regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]

for me, that's the hardest part


many have mentioned the idea that you create art because you have to create art. there isn't another option. otherwise, i'd be miserable. i couldn't even fathom it.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a director watches his film 500 times to make sure its perfect, aren't we the viewer who sits down relaxingly to watch it getting more out of it than he does?

[/ QUOTE ]

no. the viewer puts less into it and that is where the inequity is not that the viewer get more out of it. as a casual filmmaker/musician/painter/writer i can say from experience that i get way more out of my creations than anyone else ever will or can, but it does come at a cost of much effort.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, there's no way a casual viewer could ever get as much out of it as the artist could. there's just too much involved in the end product that the audience would never even be able to pick up on (partly, b/c a large chunk of the process never gets to the audience, but it's rewarding to the artist who's experienced it)

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funy, but one of the most enjoyable moments for me is when reads or watches something I've written and gives me an intepretation I hadn't even fathomed! It's quite startling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Letter I received in 2001:

[ QUOTE ]
Dear Mr. Walton,

there are letters authors receive by their readers which are more rewarding than a positive review. They show how a perceptive reader can react to a book, and give the author a lot to think about what the book <u>says</u> (sometimes beyond the author's intentions of expectations). Let me thank you warmly,

Umbero Eco

[/ QUOTE ]

This letter really shocked me. Not least of all because, well, the man responded. But because of the idea that the person on the receiving end, the reader or viewer or listener, plays an active part.

Maybe it's the skeptic in me, but enough years of bad literature classes had be hating the question "what did the author mean?" But I suppose in the end, I believed that arists knew exactly what they meant in a piece of writing or painting or whatever.

And suddenly, in response to a long and rambling letter I wrote, here was this author I respected saying, essentially, "it's possible for a story to contain more than the creator realized."

Art, I think, is like that all the time. I create art for many reasons, but chief among them is to make a connection with other people.

Without going back and re-looking, I'll paraphrase. Someone here mentioned something about "real arists," and set that against people who would otherwise hang it up and get a "real job." To me, that's absolute crap.

A "real artist" is merely someone who makes something. If you make something and call it art, you'll never get an argument from me.

The two biggest reasons I have for creating, and I think this holds true for many artists: the act of creation, and the connections that creation helps to build. I love the works I make, but the end result for me is the moment when someone tells me how they felt about the work.

Yes, there are other reasons. Financial benefit is the one that hangs out there, that people mention often as some sort of test for being "real." I've sold a fair bit of work, but I build in very little profit. I've been determined for years to make sure my own work was not only something I wanted to set out into the world, but also something that anyone could own. My profit margins are tiny, for many reasons. I sell more work, which is satisfying beyond the financial aspect. But also, I feel like I'm helping to further art ownership.

Artists have done themselves a great disservice by building up a kind of intellectual-ist wall around what they do. Much like the elitism that wine as a product has to deal with, atrists have to cope with difficulties in opening new markets because "art" has a sort of aura around it that keeps people from buying it. "Is it good?" "What does it say about me?" "Is it worth buying?"

By making the work I sell, well, relatively cheap, I think I've managed to connect with many buyers who otherwise might not have bought "art." Which, in turn, probably opens them down the line to further purchasing.

My art is not my sole means of income, of course, so this is easier. Although at one point art was my primary means, or at least significant secondary, with poker, and so I think there's still weight behind this idea.

There's another thing I've toyed with: immortality. What will we leave beind? And making art, art which speaks to other people, ensures that I leave something when I'm gone.

I'm not yet sure how much that particular feeling drives me, but it is there.

Ultimately, I make art because I love creation and I love connecting with people. Immortality and financial gain are nice thoughts, but it's the connection to people I love.

The most successful and rewarding project I've taken on can be found here: www.mountpleasantproject.org

That was in 2005-06. I left my job, determined to make it six months to a year on savings, poker, grant money and art sales. Probably in that order. Art, that project, gave me a purpose that allowed me to take a leap I might never have otherwise.

I was lucky. Poker kept me afloat for a while. People responded to the work and bought prints. I felt like the images were connecting with people. After six months I took a job again, but even today I get emails from people who see the place they live or lived and who want to say Thanks.

What they get out of it is not always what I intended. But making those connections has been one of the most rewarding things I have ever done.

Re: what do artists get out of creating art
 

Interesting post. I think you misinterpreted what I said about what a real artist does. In fact you seem to repeat my own definition. I didn't set being a real artist against getting a "real job," as if the two were strictly opposite or art was not in itself work and an estimable sort of it at that. I even gave the example of Wallace Stevens, who held a job in insurance his whole life and was one of the major poets of his century.

A real artist has to sh*t or get off the pot, is what I meant. He has to work through whatever it is holding him back, and still produce. You can't be an artist theoretically; you must actually do the thing. And often on deadline. Otherwise you are at best artistic, not an artist. A cabinet or garage full of unfinished or unpolished projects, to me, does not signify an artist. It might signify an artistic temperament, but one with something vital missing. It might signify someone who is kidding himself or has an amusing hobby. Myself, I'm one or both of the latter. To me, a real artist, by contrast, by definition sees projects to completion.

The world is full of dabblers and daydreamers. I wouldn't go so far as to call them artists, and don't think that's any slight. Artists complete; dabblers and daydreamers need merely start.

Re: what do artists get out of creating art
 

At the risk of sounding glib:

To express the unexpressible
as best as I can.


I do kinetic dioramic art. When I begin a piece I realize immediately that I’ll never accomplish the goal of fully communicating the idea behind the piece. Because I myself am unaware of the true nature of my vision. I choose to express it best I can as a pseudo-exorcism of the “demon.” I don’t express by choice but by necessity.


edit: there's nothing "tortured" (I save this or my writing!) about this perspective. It's simply a matter of emptying a glass before it overflows of its own accord.

Re: what do artists get out of creating art
 

[ QUOTE ]
The world is full of dabblers and daydreamers. I wouldn't go so far as to call them artists, and don't think that's any slight. Artists complete; dabblers and daydreamers need merely start.

[/ QUOTE ]

i like this. it's sort of a play on the idea that the hardest part of writing isn't the writing, but the re-writing (and the re-writing, and the re-writing, etc). there's a really great quote to that effect, but i can't remember what it is, exactly