Artistic Importance

[S4R]

What do you vest more weight in for the survival or expansion of music/art, the “vision” of the artist or what the listener/viewer imparts upon it?



I think the creativity of the artist is more important, if you don’t have the initial person thinking creatively and possibly breaking away from convention you’re not going to have expansive art in the first place. However, I can understand the importance of what the audience imparts upon it, no audience would leave some artists with no incentive, but I think art created mainly for some sort of outside incentive will inevitably be lacking something. I'm sure there are benefits of the latter some of you can shine light on, but in my opinion initial creativity is more important for the survival or expansion of art.

 

[YaYo]

Art is progressed and is pushed in new directions by those who dont have the need for fans, the ones who do require fans at most perfect what has already been done. Both are important though, but its all to do with the artist, i dont quite understand how the 'listener/viewer' can be more important than the creator. hm. maybe im missing something

 

[S4R]

Originally posted by YaYoGakk
Art is progressed and is pushed in new directions by those who dont have the need for fans, the ones who do require fans at most perfect what has already been done. Both are important though, but its all to do with the artist,

I completely agree.

i dont quite understand how the 'listener/viewer' can be more important than the creator. hm. maybe im missing something

Perhaps one might argue what good is art if an audience isn’t there to give it an emotional response.

 

[YaYo]

Perhaps one might argue what good is art if an audience isn’t there to give it an emotional response.

Art is primarily about the expression and emotional response of the artist, not of the audience. But i guess without an audience any creative changes in art would not be taken on by other artists since they wouldnt know of it. But the importance still primarily rests on the artist imo.

 

[Don Corleone]

without the listener, you would be "an actor out alone" like jim morrison says on "riders on the storm."

 

[Kveldssanger]

The fact about every kind of art is that the artist should choose the path and the audience should decide if they want to follow it. So I agree with most of the above that the vision of the artist is definitely the most important element.

 

[YaYo]

yep thats a good point, the artists are responsible for creating the options of where the artform will progress in future, while the audience are responsible for choosing which of those paths will succeed.

 

[MetalManCPA]

Both

We are ALL artists in a way - and at some point - your art influences others, and then the listener/viewer may accumulate past art experiences to help create his/her own.

A few examples of what I mean:

MUSIC - not all are artists in the musical sense. Some only have the ability to listen, and if, as a listener, you do not "buy in" to the musicians creativity, that musician may not survive. But most musicians are also listeners, and are direcxtly/indirectly influenced by other musicians - thus, both the artist and the listener are needed.

PAINTINGS/VISUAL ART - the artist is necessary to transcribe his/her vision into print in order for there to be art. From my limited art knowledge, I don't believe that all artists expect the viewer to see exactly the message the artist saw when creating the artwork. Obviously, abstract art is meant for the viewer to draw his/her own conclusion, and interpret the meaning in many different ways. A photograph, on the other hand, of a person or building for example, becomes more artistic when the photographer has a sense of framing and lighting, and is able to create a mood out of something most others would just snap as a picture. In that particular case, the artists is much more important.

EVERYDAY LIFE - each day you dress and walk out the door, you are living art. Your car is art. Everything around you is art. A home builder may see a "neat" house, and incorporate a new roof or window-frame design into houses he/she builds. Someone may walk down the street, love the way you are dressed, and go out and buy a "new" look.

I guess my point, from the examples above, are the co-existance of the artist and listener/viewer is vital for arts continuance. For there are a rare few people that can not be influenced by other things they've seen in creating their art.

 

[D Mullholand]

Looking at the experience of art itself (listening to music, watching a movie etc), the listener/viewer is much more important (the emotional part of the experience depends solely on the listener, there's no such thing as "emotional music" in reality: this characteristic is only useful in local music discussions/recommendations) - but on the other hand, the artist has to bring the required depth into his art to increase the possibility of dialogue between the artist/art and the listener, to make it more universal. Without the required depth, a dialogue (an understanding) can occur, but it requires a very creative listener, who will be motivated (because of his creativity or because of prejudice) to fill in the spaces in the art's conception using his own imagination.

It can work both ways, and there are many other possibilities, depending on the cultural background, on the direction of art, on its demands, on its intensity or on its evocativeness (?), depending also on the intentions of the artist - whether he wants a dialogue, or he prefers his art to be thought-provoking and subjective, to cause the listener to think creatively.

D Mullholand