"There can be no substitution for seclusion and the discovering of new worlds." Mark Kulaga, M.Ed. ( words inspired by Tiina Holli ) " We are all ignorant monkeys under an umbrella. [ Definition of humankind. ] " Tiina Hölli ( words inspired by Mark Kulaga ) A vivid example how some immortal idioms and sayings are born ... An excerpt from an artist group discussion in Art Professionals World Wide : Why artists become artists ? Quoting our short conversation today afternoon 11.11.2015 me with a good friend and colleague Mark Kulaga, M. Ed., USA : Tiina Hölli : Hi Fiona, ref : " Isn't it that the artist also needs to know, that which has been created before in order to avoid replication. " Not necessarily, if art is a living process and what artist does at that very moment is just a phase, a step forward in her process. It might even be harmful to know it has been done a million times before .. : ) Although, it is not necessary to invent the wheel again and again, so artists are to know the basic facts of their profession, and the more the better when concidered the issue of replication. B U T and nowadays it is almost ( well, practically ) impossible to know all, that has been created before. ____________________ Mark Kulaga, M.Ed. : Tiina, Yes, it is impossible to know what has been created before, but with the wealth of knowledge, and knowledgeable artists, it is the conundrum of an infinite amount of monkeys typing at a keyboard for an infinite amount of time recreating every work of Shakespeare. The monkeys are not aware of his work, nor do they have insight to the meanings of his expressions and so it goes to say, they will in all probability never recreate these works. If one has no knowledge of another kind of art, and they 'reinvent' this art, they are indeed original because they could never know it's meaning or inception and it will only be representative of their creation. Only by knowing another piece of art can one reinvent it. If I create a piece of art and it is strongly familiar based on another artist's rendition, would knowing of this art change how I create my own? It's the same argument of me knocking over a vase when only prior I was warned to be careful of the vase, yet after, considering, would it have made a difference if I were never warned? Would I have still knocked it over? ____________________ Tiina Hölli : Mark, yes, exactly, and yet, if an artist is not aware of what she is doing, and some similarities ( to whatever ) occur, can we ever take this as an evidence of ( Jung ) an unconscious that we humans share ? Because ... we receive so much information each second nowadays unaware of receiving these images, audio etc. ..and also, due to population explosion, also the count of the number of artists has exploded - we cannot all be informed of what is / has been going on around the planet in art field - unlike artists during last century ( say 1950 Modernism -artists ) were very well aware what went on during the Renaissance - so we are all ignorant monkeys here, in fact ____________________ Mark Kulaga, M.Ed. : The thing about it is, if one does it unconsciously they are still being original because they are adding their own vernacular to the imagery and it will never be the same. If it is a direct copy, or reinvention, someone will notice and it is then clear they are not original in either intent or execution. Unless of course they are forging the art in which case they have purposefully circumvented the creative process and gone straight to creative hell. :) What I find even more irritating are those artists who follow a style of another artist such as Picasso and bill themselves as "Cubists" for example. It to me is the anticlimax of non-inventiveness and a lacking of introspective ability. They are forgers of originality. Next I fail to see the attraction to seascapes, potted flowers, and landscapes, unless, and I have posted this elsewhere there is an injection of mystery and meaning that reaches beyond the representative form. It is mere mimicry, and that is bland and unimaginative respective to art. ____________________ Tiina Hölli : Mark, you nailed it. If fetched or " copied from own mind " = done unconsciously but yet unaware of being informed at some point of life ( = hidden memories for example a fast glimpse of a painting seen in a background decoration of a movie scene ), then it still is original, because it cannot be the exact copy ( all though some of us possess photographic memories ? ) ( but then again, if such photographic memory exists, then artist must be aware of the origin of that photo ... ). B U T what about the issue of copying the spirit of a fellow artist's work / oeuvre, or ( to get to the topic) BECOMING AN ARTIST due to a (hidden memory ) like above explained ? ( deluding oneself ) ____________________ Tiina Hölli : oh - we were speaking simultaneously about the same ... : ) ____________________ Mark Kulaga, M.Ed. : Copying the spirit of another artist. One can be compared to in their representation, but I see this as a form of mockery, which is why I secluded myself for 4 years of any exposure to outside art. Those will say it is impossible, but I say it is. In order to find one's self -- "Seven years in Tibet", one can hide from influence other than nature, and introspection. We can indeed train ourselves to avoid and obliterate influence with focused effort. The problem I see with artists is, there is very little motivation to do this and many are in a hurry to be 'creative' so they do the opposite. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy of ignorance and the abundance of self-importance. The artists who appropriate art purposefully on the other hand are not as degrading as those who would circumvent honesty in the creative process. There is an honesty in the purposeful absurdity of appropriation, and homage. This may appear to be contradictory, but it is a careful and considered eye towards the art that matters. Van Gogh represented a purely of vision I find savoring, yet do not feel the temptation to reproduce. Van Gogh was himself, and there will be no other in how he represented his vision, but there are those who are living similar lives with experiences who are in a way mirroring the motivations that protect their individuality. ____________________ Tiina Hölli : Mark, yes, I have the similar history as you describe, and I also say that this can be done - it is not impossible, but hard it was. What came of it ? A new perspective to appreciate originality when found - a " nose " to find it, to recognize it when it quickly passes you. ____________________ Mark Kulaga, M.Ed. : Edit: One method regarding Conceptual art as in Scientific Methodology, I can see copying in a way to be a relevant homage as it's intent is to bring awareness or renewed interest in the original art work. It is in this vain I propose it valid to reset and retest societies response to what is art. "Folded Paper as Drawing" [Sol LeWitt] for example, or Duchamp's "Fountain" which itself was a copy of Else Plötz. I believe paying homage to Sol to be a relevant endeavor given credit to the artist, but when considering Duchamp and his obvious connection to Else, I find his work to be subpar after the knowledge of this plagiarism was brought to light. Is that to say Sol was the first to fold paper and unfold it creating lines and then relate this to the basic term associated with drawing? I think he is. It is with respect to the orientating artist we also mention them and give credit where it emanated from, or the idea which we move forward with our own solutions addressing current constraints. ____________________ Mark Kulaga, M.Ed. : "There can be no substitution for seclusion and the discovering of new worlds." Mark Kulaga (words inspired by Tiina Holli) ____________________ Tiina Hölli (replying to the previous of that idiom in Mark's comments) : Mark, yes, good point, originality inside a given method used. Can we expand this to BECOMING AN ARTIST, WHY ? as being-an-artist can be a Method used to get some place, a tool only ? Why some artists become artists - they use artist-hood as an umbrella to give them cover to do as they please ____________________ Tiina Hölli (replying to Mark's newborn idiom as it just came visible) : oh, wow ____________________ Tiina Hölli : Mark, I am going to quote you - thank you ____________________ Mark Kulaga, M.Ed. : Yes, Andy Warhol "Art is what you can get away with" has I think, been misrepresented because hie used the tool of mimicry to change the context of the 'commercial' to the 'provocative', and in that sense he created himself as an artist because he could execute his art unlike others, and has been copied by the general public. One does not copy Andy Warhol and call themselves an artist. Just like one does not copy the Mona Lisa and consider themselves on par with Leonardo Da Vinci. One has to embody their own inspirational self and through retrospect and consideration cultivate the artist representative of who they are, and perception plays a large part in this development. Artists become artist because there is a problem to solve and their creative solution to this endeavor immaculates their intent. Clearly there are artists who in contrary maculate solutions with ill conceived notions of originality. ____________________ Tiina Hölli : : ) well put words one after another, I am impressed Mark. Yes, and I believe it has already been under investigation in this thread, if I recall correctly, that one should not call oneself artist lightly, even though others may use that noun of one. It comes thru years of hard work, and as Mark said, learning to percept / learning the different phases of perception. ____________________ Tiina Hölli : correction : percept = perceive sorry about that ____________________ Tiina Hölli : so ... to sum up a bit : we are all ignorant monkeys under the umbrella of art. haha ... to expand this to the definition of humanity - hmm ____________________ ____ end of conversation today ____ -- > but the result of our conversation immediately in my head -- > |
We are all ignorant monkeys under an umbrella.
[ Definition of humankind. ]
Tiina Hölli
( words inspired by Mark Kulaga )
______________________________________________________________________________
As a conclusion I honed a bit my spontaneous words and built up a waterproof definition of humankind - we are still just ignorant monkeys shivering together under the umbrella of technology, culture and society - not much has changed since the beginning of our history. Language is still a virus from outer space, memes spread like diseases, and nobody really has any clues of what we should do. And the umbrella prevents us from seeing where the light comes from, so we have developed some methods of guessing : science and arts. Thank you Koogz once again : ) Adding an excerpt 18.11.2015, as I could not keep out of it yesterday and today ... ( what the fuck - maybe I am just hash signing myself ? ) " toistomerkki - hash sign - ditto mark traffic sign installed for the purpose of reminding the drivers of the continuing validity of an earlier sign " [ ... to be truthful, always, I haven't the foggiest ... ] [ but a plus for me for even trying to question my own motivations ] I am counting on being more disciplined tomorrow so ... quoting a short conversation by combining only my comments here ( as I did not ask the permission to quote the others ) An excerpt from an artist group discussion in Art Professionals World Wide : Why artists become artists ? yesterday and today afternoon 17 - 18.11.2015 |
Tiina Hölli : I thought Maarten ment, that an artist that creates a r t ( => - she is not a derivative-labourer of any sort - ) ( => - she is not a weathercock of any sort - ) gathers one by one around her a public that expects of her HER art, not anything motivated of any outer impulse, and this public would be disappointed if this artist should be influenced by them. note : " derivative-labourer " I just made this word up, don't judge it too harshly but I think you know what I mean : ) ____________________ That is more or less what I also said, but what I said excludes the influence of the audience - the audience comes because of the artist already is doing something they like. ____________________ Definition. Androgyne. An individual who feels they do not properly fit into the gender roles ascribed by society to males and females ____________________ Good morning Sunil and thank you, and to clear my previous answer to you to your original ponderings : "One of the most interesting aspects about art is understanding the why and the how of “becoming” an artist. " My contribution : An individual who feels does not properly fit into the roles ascribed by society to human beings. Thank you. ( = meaning of my contribution : there are not many choices left but to be independent-seeker, creative and determinate and invent a role in/outside the society to your own liking and lead a lifeline that satisfies yourself. ) Thank you Sunil for this interesting topic. ____________________ ____ end of conversation today ____ |
Added days 18.11.2015 15:25