tortured soul?

[SciAggie]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

I'm not saying they're right. I'm just saying that I'm hearing an odd lack of empathy (with other artists) and experience (of knowing other artists) in your responses.

After looking back at the OP's original question, I do not know anything about what drives a "famous" artist - I freely concede that. If I lack any empathy it is for the same reason. It is not meant to be callous or insensitive.

The discussion about artists is still something that I feel qualified to speak about, based on my own experiences. I do know people that I would consider "Artists". I see Art as a medium for expression and those whom I consider artists in my experience often see the world differently than the rest of us. In conversation I would say they are "wired" differently. If they are driven it is because art provides a pathway of expression; a way to express their vision and be socially rewarded by being praised as "creative". Art is in a sense a way of coping in a world in which they don't always feel comfortable or accapted. (This would be my explanation for the self-doubt)

I also don't think we should dismiss the evening pottery classes for the who-evers. This may as easily be an outlet for expression for a personal void or inner suffering, although it is not necessary. As I read in some other thread, not all art is good. The bad coffee mug made by a lonely, suffering widow may still be something they are driven to do - as a means of coping.

I guess my experience leads me back to believing that it may be that it is not necessary to suffer for one's art, but rather that some art is the expression of a suffering soul.

At the end of the day, I'm just a middle-aged science teacher that likes to take pictures and doesn't know diddly about the art world - so you may dismiss all of my comments. I do appreciate the way some discussions on this forum require us to think.

[Snacks]

No time to reply, but here's a video of Don McCullin that I recommend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVZe4rQKcls

[monochromejrnl]

The artists I tend to admire the most, let their work speak for them rather than the other way around.

[back alley]

let's not torture each other with this thread, ok?

chris, tone it down a bit, please...and gsn...i have no idea what to say to you...

[Peter Wijninga]

"A great artist... must be shaken by the naked truths that will not be comforted. This divine discontent, this disequilibrium, this state of inner tension is the source of artistic energy". Goethe

[back alley]

i would think that loving to photograph the world around you and more often than not...being dissatisfied with the results...is torture enough...

it is for me anyway.

[jpa66]

Lots to think about in this thread, but I'll simply address the OP. I don't think that you necessarily HAVE to suffer, but many artists definitely are tortured souls.

This question came up often when I was in college ( as an art major ). I always thought back to my own personal experience. I always seemed to be able to create the best art when I was feeling great and everything seemed to be going well in my life. The art I created when I was not in such a positive state may have been just as good, but it certainly wasn't any better, and I don't recall feeling any better creating it then when I was actually enjoying my life.

So, I think that suffering is definitely NOT a prerequisite to creating art of any type, but you can most definitely create great art when you are suffering. I think that it just depends upon the individual.

My two cents worth...

[jpa66]

And completely off-topic, but I always wanted to ask Joe:

Is that is a photo of you and your dog in your avatar ( and if so, when was it taken? ). Whoever it is strikes a dapper pose in a set of really cool clothes...

[back alley]

it's my grandfather circa 1949-50.

[emraphoto]

perhaps 'tortured' is not the word?

i know that to produce my best work i need to care deeply about the people i photograph. be it 20 mins from home or on another continent. caring deeply about subject matter (excluding all the other emotional hurtles like rejection letters, gallery openings etc.) involves effecting the heart and mind in one way or the other. at least that is my experience.

if i don't feel the range of emotions the people i photograph experience then i am not working hard enough/close enough.

tortured? no
effected? yes

[jpberger]

I think there is a paradox inso far as we can define "art" as whatever we do that is not directly related to survival and reproduction, and we have a lot more time and energy for that kind of stuff when we feel secure and our basic needs are met.

Any one who has experienced deep depression, poverty, abuse, psychosis, addiction knows that these extreme states more or less completely preclude the possibility of creative expression.


At the same time one of the motivations for making art can be to achieve some sort of mental/spiritual equilibrium, and a lot of great work has come from people who are dancing on the edge of very perilous circumstances. For example Rodrigos Concerto de Arunjuez-- the product of deep grief over the loss of a child.

One of the things I've had to grapple with as an art school student is how to keep working on a practice which I developed in part to keep myself sane, which when subject to deadlines, critiques, various extenal pressure itself becomes the source of considerable anxiety. But with practice and support it gets better.

Ultimately we do a a great disservice to everyone if we romanticize misery-- the reality is that art making gives us stength to pull back from the edge of chaos and keep on keeping on. It does not depend on us being miserable.

[Chris101]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

What a load of stupidity. Where the hell are these 'well fed' artists? I don't know any.

...

I've come across a few well fed artists in the last couple of years. The first was a total fluke - Eric Fischl. I had long admired one of his paintings and was quite surprised - that particular painting was not one of his typical pieces. Since then, Eric has introduced me to a number of artists in his social stratum. All of them are well fed - not overfed, mind you, but making a lot of money for making the kind of art they want, rather than trying to find the stuff that sells.

As successful artists I find they share a few traits. Like Chris said they are confident in their work. It is important, and they know it going into it. This sense of the importance of their work is understated and absolute. It seems that they do not question it's value to the human condition, they expect it.

Second they have something to say. Each artist at that level of social acceptance has a primary message - perhaps it cannot be articulated verbally, but they can make stabs at it. None-the-less, their artwork is on target with few exceptions.

Third, they are thematic. Every piece relates to every other piece, or perhaps compliments it. The combination of one then another, then another statement in the same theme adds up to help them make the statement from my second point.

Finally they are selective. They do not show all their work, but only that which supports 2 and 3 of this list. Sure, they experiment, but you and I will never see the result of those experiments. The confidence of #1 is why they can do this, they need not justify what they do, so they only claim what builds them up, and disown the work that does not.

Suffering? There may be some unfulfilled desire - especially at the beginning. I suspect that is where many of us are now. And most of us will remain there, as we lack the confidence, the purity of artistic vision to make sense of the conflicted feelings that desire and lack brings. But we sense it is "out there", so we strive to attain it.

If we do, then we "make it" and get to eat well. If not, we continue to do the work we do, and spend the occasional week making do with a jar of peanut butter and a loaf of bargain bread.

ps, or it could just be a load of malarky and totally depend on your agent and the direction of the social wind.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by Nomad Z

What on earth does self doubt have to do with art?

Much. While it is not necessary, self-doubt (which may be unknown to those who employ self-motivation) is one of the biggest drivers in people's self improvement.

Originally Posted by Nomad Z

Dropping a tune that I initially thought could be a goodie gives me no trouble whatsoever.

This is not self-doubt; it is self-editing.

Originally Posted by Nomad Z

Same for those that think being an artist is something that they must live, sleep, eat and breath - if that approach affects their happiness, then I can sympathise, but not empathise. There is more to life than being an artist.

True: "being an artist" is not some sort of N-Step Program. People often look for formulas, for How-Tos: how to be smarter, more sensitive, more efficient, less unhappy, funnier. There is nothing wrong with seeking. Unfortunately, there are people who seek in the wrong places.

Too much misguided confidence, however, can lead to this (if "what other people think" didn't matter, then this guy wouldn't go on a contest that is driven precisely by that principle): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGosrctwpiU

[alistair.o]

Originally Posted by Nomad Z

What on earth does self doubt have to do with art?...

Many artists, artisans are plagued with self doubt. I hesitate to place myself on their levels but I have never yet got over self doubt and even after praise I am wracked with doubts as to its genuineness. Many, many of my photographs (raw images) were 'junked' by myself after I had put up an 800x600 jpeg on t'internet at my wifes behest. Then, on the odd occasion, I have received emails asking if a copy is available - ce la vie.

As an aside, my wife is an artist and when I watch her work in charcoal I just want to junk all of everything!

Al

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nomad Z

There is more to life than being an artist.

Only sort of. As I said earlier, and as Chris agreed, it's not a career choice, it's a personality. If you don't have the personality, you may choose to disbelieve those who do.

Now, I drive -- but I don't call myself a driver. I cook -- but I don't call myself a cook. I repair things -- but I don't call myself a mechanic. I do however call myself a writer and photographer, partly because that's how I earn a living, and partly because both have been central to my life for over 40 years.

Sure, pursue art as a hobby if you like. But I took the OP to refer to people who care enough about their art, whatever it may be, to throw themselves into it wholeheartedly. From observation, as noted in my first post in this thread, I do in fact believe that most of them 'suffer' in one way for it, but also that the benefits they get from it are pretty remarkable too. On further thought I would also suggest that 'suffer' is substantially meaningless in this context, because they don't have a choice.

You may find "they don't have a choice" to be meaningless. Most artists I know will however understand.

Cheers,

R.

[skibeerr]

Originally Posted by back alley

do you think that one has to suffer for his 'art'?

the tales are endless of the great artists being miserable, tortured people who cannot find happiness in life but only in their art.

whadyathink?

This Antwerp painter is the real thing for me, not the wine sipping (if they have to pay themselves, quaffing if it's free) condecending bunch that dwells in the corridors of our Art school.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCeMgtoRago

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by GSNfan

Btw, artist is NOT a job, its title that is given after someone has created art.

http://www.simplyhired.com/a/jobs/list/q-art


Just as much as "bureaucrat", "detective", "singer" or "scientist" is NOT a job. But surely somebody who is a scientist, a detective or a bureaucrat works (and gets paid) as one.


Sheeeeez

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

You may find "they don't have a choice" to be meaningless. Most artists I know will however understand.

As is with any language, one must know it in it in order to understand it. Same with personalities, crafts, and chosen paths. One may pretend to know if one can make out a thing or two, but understand?

Try making a dog understand the difference between fuchsia and burgundy.

[Red Robin]

Originally Posted by freeranger

I believe that others should suffer my art.

While I'm not sure its art, most would agree , my photos do make most viewers suffer, and I do include myself. Talent, maybe THAT's the answer! If it only cane in a can, I would surely need a case, OH, woe is me. Well that's my vote.

[tlitody]

Originally Posted by back alley

do you think that one has to suffer for his 'art'?

the tales are endless of the great artists being miserable, tortured people who cannot find happiness in life but only in their art.

whadyathink?

In my experience many artists (and designers and architects) are insufferable. They are incapable of understanding that others don't see things like they do. They are mostly self obsessed. It's no wonder that they they suffer but it's a self afflicted condition. Should we pity them or put them on a pedastal and worship them?

[daninjc]

maybe we'd be better off just caring about the art and not the artists. So neither pity nor pedestals for the persons. Whereas it makes sense to criticize and judge ideas as strongly as one can (and so art works), it doesn't make much sense to judge people.

Originally Posted by tlitody

In my experience many artists (and designers and architects) are insufferable. They are incapable of understanding that others don't see things like they do. They are mostly self obsessed. It's no wonder that they they suffer but it's a self afflicted condition. Should we pity them or put them on a pedastal and worship them?

[dave lackey]

I have tried to figure this thread and responses out but I can only ask, "What on earth are you folks talking about?"

Maybe the terms carelessly tossed about such as "art", "artist", "suffering" and such should be defined first. I doubt it can be done and that is what makes this thread so confusing. But that's just me. I'll go back to my little corner and continue suffering.

[dave lackey]

Originally Posted by tlitody

In my experience many artists (and designers and architects) are insufferable. They are incapable of understanding that others don't see things like they do. They are mostly self obsessed. It's no wonder that they they suffer but it's a self afflicted condition. Should we pity them or put them on a pedastal and worship them?

From an architectural background, I can honestly say that basically architects, designers and artists are nowhere close to the same thing. Architects self obsessed? Not any more than the pigeon-hole in which they work everyday. It has nothing to do with art but what the clients want and what is the trend for this year. Try to sell a present-day Kroger building in 1975 and you would see what I mean. It is all market-driven, not artistic at all.

There is a thread I started some time ago about my thoughts that all city planners should be artists. Well, include architects and designers in that as well. Basically the built-environment around us sucks and to think it was done on purpose, not by accident, speaks volumes.

[tlitody]

see what I mean

[literiter]

We live in a hedonistic and free society. If it makes you happy to suffer you should just get out there and suffer!