[ 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.