View Full Version : You are poor. Are you a better artist?
You are poor. Does that make you a better artist?
Or are you an artist simply because you can't get a long with the corporate society? Or maybe are you a spoiled brat? Or just lazy? Now, this doesn't make you a good artist, anyway, but people usually mixup terms: They say "this guy's an artist" while they're thinking "this guy's a loser".
And if you we're rich, would you be a better artist?
When you go out shooting, do you carry money with you in case you'd want a Coke and a sandwich or do you prefer to shoot while starving so your suffering mind gets you quicker into the "ZoNe"?
Let's discuss!
WoolenMammoth
05-04-2008, 15:39
are you kidding with this thread?
Economic status has nothing to do with talent. It can influence an artists style, message, tools..... but creative talent is independent of one's wealth or means.
A wealthy individual maybe able to pursue his art full time if he is free of worrying about an income, but if he has my raw talent it won't matter how many hours a day he spends creating, he will still suck.
Conversely, a talented artist in less fortunate circumstance may have his art influenced by the experiences in his life resulting from that economic status, but the building block of his artistic success is a talent to see and create in a way unique to himself through an expression in his chosen media.
...do you prefer to shoot while starving so your suffering mind gets you quicker into the "ZoNe"? Let's discuss!
This snarky question deserves no honest reply, but I'll give one anyway:
"Try as he might, this gracious noble Lord
Who lifts his pen and thinks he then can write
Cannot-- for who can pen when he is bored?
The mind of leisure only can be trite.
This pretty knight who feebly lifts his sword
To make a witless thrust against his doom
Is foiled by what his noble birth affords--
Dogs, dogs, more dogs, and far too many rooms.
So fortune smiles on those who own the land
And frowns at trivia from the dabbler's hand."
Most of the greatest 19th century painters died poor didnīt they ? The greatest one even cut his ear and sold only one painting during is living.:rolleyes:
Maybe, if just one (my mother?) buys one of my pictures then ...
naaaaaa !:D
An interesting topic, Ned. I just don't know of course, any more than I could define art itself in more than the vaguest terms.
But I do think artistic success is not dependent either on the generally perceived features of artistic temperament. In other words a well-organized 'up and together' person who also happened to be comfortably off might be as talented an artist as one with nothing to declare but his genius and a bohemian approach.
Interestingly I do think that a degree of deprivation from food does focus the mind - as can illness, in my experience.
And, if we apply the discussions about art to photography, other factors come into play. For instance, the person who has charm and an interest in others may be more effective at disarming hostility in candid picture-taking situations. Body language too is all important. For example, when you were taking pictures of the boys with the dogs or of the Tsigan/Zigeuner/Gipsies could you gain approval tacitly where spoken words might have interrupted the flow of events?
I am intrigued by this as I reckon I have quite a good rapport with the would-be subjects in these sort of situations, but I always feel nervous beforehand.
What is your own view of the successful artist's 'make up' and approach (apart from being armed with Leica Summilux and Noctilux lenses!)?
Best wishes,
Tom
"Or are you an artist simply because you can't get a long with the corporate society?"
huh?
,-)
Interestingly I do think that a degree of deprivation from food does focus the mind - as can illness, in my experience.
How does an illness help to focus the mind?
This snarky question deserves no honest reply, but I'll give one anyway:
"Try as he might, this gracious noble Lord
Who lifts his pen and thinks he then can write
Cannot-- for who can pen when he is bored?
The mind of leisure only can be trite.
This pretty knight who feebly lifts his sword
To make a witless thrust against his doom
Is foiled by what his noble birth affords--
Dogs, dogs, more dogs, and far too many rooms.
So fortune smiles on those who own the land
And frowns at trivia from the dabbler's hand."
Why would a genuine invitation to a discussion deserve to be called a snarky question?
Best wishes,
Tom
It seems to me that I am a photographer because it what I am. Been this all my life. It is my life. Has nothing to do with money. I've sold photos for a lot and also given them away.
I don't even know what an artist is. I've met hundreds of people who claim to be artists and only a few that i'd even consider as such.
How does an illness help to focus the mind?
Ask that to the Opus Dei ... :rolleyes:
This is just personal observation in some instances. I shouldn't want to stress that point.
Best wishes,
Tom
It seems to me that I am a photographer because it what I am. Been this all my life. It is my life. Has nothing to do with money. I've sold photos for a lot and also given them away.
I don't even know what an artist is. I've met hundreds of people who claim to be artists and only a few that i'd even consider as such.
How can you consider only a few as artists if you donīt know what is an artist :D
Definiton of art : Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
Anybody can do that, now each of us can rank artists according to their personal tastes, but basically, we are all artists (and most of us would take a few coins for a coke)
I don't think that you're joking with this thread Ned.
That leaves one other possibility, you just don't "get it".
You must live in a different world.
Your 100 dollars per week for a Nocti, that's almost half my income.
crawdiddy
05-04-2008, 16:20
It doesn't matter whether the artist is rich or poor. But good art is made for the artist himself, without consideration of public perception. Naturally, artists can prosper by producing what the public wants. Therefore, I say that poverty is a plus, with respect to production of high quality art.
Al Patterson
05-04-2008, 16:20
"Or are you an artist simply because you can't get a long with the corporate society?"
huh?
,-)
I get this, but you still need talent to be an artists.
Al Patterson
05-04-2008, 16:23
I don't think that you're joking with this thread Ned.
That leaves one other possibility, you just don't "get it".
You must live in a different world.
Your 100 dollars per week for a Nocti, that's almost half my income.
I've seen great photos taken with a Jupiter-8. It's about talent. No amount of extra money spent on tools can compensate for a lack of talent...
(And I'm NOT stating who lacks talent here, other than maybe myself).
Most artists (in the pure sense) don't care about monetary success. The best quote that sums up the mindset of an artist is from Rumi, a 13th Century poet, even though it applies to love:
All year round the lover is mad,
unkempt, lovesick, and in disgrace.
Without love there is nothing but grief.
In love ... what else matter?
If you don't feel this way about what you do, you're just a poser, or doing it for money. Goes for women/men too. If you don't feel this way about your woman/man, forget it, you don't really love her/him. Time to get real before it's too late and you die without having lived. Or you don't know what love is.
Don't know what an artist is means just that. There are people I've met who if asked I'd say were perhaps what people think an artist is.
Your defintion of art is nothing. If everything and everyone is art then there is no art and there are no artists there is just everything.
Perhaps what you are saying is a bit like what I've said in that the word art itself and the word artist itself lead us down dead ends.
An artist is and nothing more. During my highschool and early college days, I loved to paint, draw, and create "art." I've won many awards for some of my work. One of my most recognized pieces was a oil pastel of waves. When creating the piece, I hated it. We were limited (senior class) to using only two colors, plus white and maybe black. Also, the colors had to be _____ (opposite each other on the color wheel. I had yellow and purple). When I finished the piece, I decided to put it in the schools art contest. It won Best of Show. Many people commented to me of the "emotion," the "feel," and etc. that the picture evoked in them. I was shocked. What to me was considered a failure, to others it was considered beautiful art. Anyways, as the saying goes; "Art is in the eyes of the beholder."
I have not been painting for several years now and only just this month took out my oil paints to start again. I am having a very hard time right now to be creative in my paintings and make them meaningful. Why? I suppose that it is because that I am so busy and preoccupied with surviving. I am always busy working so I'd have money to pay the bills, I am always busy studying at the University to achieve my goal in the medical field, and I am spending way to much time at RFF reading. I think an artist is "good" due to his surroundings and what is going on with them at that point in life. A interesting example is Paublo Picaso. In his beginning days, his form of art was completely different from what we see today. His earlier works have little artistic value (or so they say) compared to what we know him for.
Suffering, illness, and poverty have a profound impact on an individuals "self," and that will shape them as an artist. Whether this makes them a good artist or not is for the viewer to decide.
Don't know what an artist is means just that. There are people I've met who if asked I'd say were perhaps what people think an artist is.
Your defintion of art is nothing. If everything and everyone is art then there is no art and there are no artists there is just everything.
Perhaps what you are saying is a bit like what I've said in that the word art itself and the word artist itself lead us down dead ends.
I just picked up this definition on the web a few minutes ago and found it interesting. To me, art is whenever you use your imagination and creativity to mold, shoot, say, sing, etc .... something. This is independant from the social meaning of the word "artist" which varies a lot from country to country and even within social classes.
So, yes this is probably going down dead ends... we won't solve that one. :rolleyes:
But to conclude, (it's late). No, being poor does not make you a better artist. Talent and work do. Money can also make things easier in your search.
Chriscrawfordphoto
05-04-2008, 16:42
It is mean spirited, nasty and indefensible. I grew up relatively wealthy and have been very poor for the last decade because when I graduated from college I found that an art degree makes you unemployable in the midwest (and I stayed here for my son). Poverty didn't make me a better or worse artist, and my family's money didn't either but poverty closed a lot of doors to me. Leicasniper and Pixtu were the only people I've seen in this thread give honest answers that weren't meant to degrade those less fortunate. Thank you.
WoolenMammoth
05-04-2008, 16:43
this board used to be a really fun place to read information. its a shame there is so much trolling going on here lately.
Ned is often like this. You'll get used to it after a while.
Don't know how Ned is, but your post was pretty provocative.
Don't know how Ned is, but your post was pretty provocative.
This is a spill over from another thread where many members stated that HCB was only successful because he was rich and never had to work for a living.
In that thread Ned stated that nobody successful was poor.
He also stated that anyone could buy a Noctilux ($100 per week) if they spent less on CocaCola and Nike's.
I don't agree with Ned's views on richness/talent, that is not provocation.
Opening a thread like this, that's provocation.
Pitxu,
Who even talked about you?
Sorry Ned, I thought your sarky questions were open to all members.
He also stated that anyone could buy a Noctilux ($100 per week) if they spent less on CocaCola and Nike's.
I agree with this though. If I spent less on my groceries and unneeded extra's (TV, dining out, etc.) in life, I could save about $100 per week and eventually own a Nocti. But right now a Nocti would be an unneeded extra, so.... :D
I agree with this though. If I spent less on my groceries and unneeded extra's (TV, dining out, etc.) in life, I could save about $100 per week and eventually own a Nocti. But right now a Nocti would be an unneeded extra, so.... :D
There! You see? ;)
Pitxu,
How can a succesful artist be poor? That's beyond me. Average, fine. But poor? Succesful? Succesful and poor? Something wrong if a succesful artist is poor. Maybe the money goes into too much booze or drugs, what do you think?
There are poor artists, rich artists and smart artists.
The best artists and most influential have always been the smart ones... The most numerous artists are the rich ones because they can afford to be 'an artist'. The poor artists usually die unknown and very few of them become famous.
Sorry Ned, I thought your sarky questions were open to all members.
My question was a slightly humorous and valid question to all. I have no idea why you took it personal as you did , heh?
And that was the intent from the outset. Now you understand our Ned. A talented photographer who's also a troll.
Kevin the classic Canon troll, anti-noctilux troll calling me a troll. Whoaaa :D
With all due respect, you all need to find something else to do tonight. There is no need to have a war here. Please move along, this is obviously not a discussion, just a place for you to carry on a battle.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.