Muse # 9438

[hollow_eyes]

I think the greatest thing that can happen to an artist is to have all their work destroyed.

Comments

[hoboxcore]

I would argue the greatest thing would be to die from a semi-literal hemmorage of creativity, and then physically exploding with creativity.

Therefore their work is brilliant, and they are dead.

[fotia]

Sounds good.

[ramones_sedated]

I agree.

Why?

[fotia]

When one's work is destroyed it may bring to mind the importance of one BECOMING their own art- fully employable, bifurcating, growing from the seed.

Re: Why?

[ramones_sedated]

On the contrary, I believe that by destoying one's artwork, it allows the artist to understand and to create a distance between themselves and their work, as they will only ever fail at creating the perfect piece, the one which fully captures their own essence. Art is trully a masturbatory release, because the artist has not yet managed to distance themselves, and so still feels that each piece is a part of them, a representation of who they are, or were. But as all life is constantly in motion and changing, the art too must change. By destroying the past works, one is forced to rethink everything they have done, and have worked toward, but most importantly, to understand that their work is not themselves, and that failing to create the perfet piece, and moving on from it, is not the worst that could happen.
That seems needlessly long, but oh well.

Re: Why?

[fotia]

What you are saying is true.
What I was meaning to say is that one should be their own work of art.
Life is art. Living and being we create ourselves with what we have of ourselves. And yes, it is constantly in motion and changing, so what I am saying is that art is not limited, so we can be our own work of art.
Art is movement, yes?

Re: Why?

[fotia]

whereas if we do not see ourselves as self-creating , then how would we be relevant to ourselves?

[zomblyn]

...see this is what happens when people who dont make their living off of art try to define it.

[fotia]

Every definition is contextual, of course. Is that wrong?

[hollow_eyes]

Is it art if it's something that can be bartered and sold?

Or is it just any other commodity at that point?

[zomblyn]

you are way over romantisizing art. art is not the sacred ideal you seemt to think it is. it is very much a skill. sure you can express yourself with it, but thats more of a added bonus than a main feature. any idiot can express themselves, the artist has the ability to put those expressions into a tangible form.