From Chris Fahey Sent Wed, Oct 7th 1998, 18:38
From Chris Fahey Sent Wed, Oct 7th 1998, 18:38
>he is saying that to validate art it needs to have
>been created with the intent to come out the way it did.
I fall in the middle here. I find artistry in the work of the insane as
being similar to the 'artistry' in cloud formations or oil spills - it may
not be not created with any kind of intelligence *I* could possibly identify
with, yet it can be very compelling/shocking/beautiful (whatever you like
art to be).
That said, I far more enjoy art created with *deliberateness* and
*intelligence* since these are two qualities I personally strive to have in
my own endeavors. I have no intention of having my accidents and moments of
incoherence be posthumously construed by anyone as my art. When I experience
art, I try to put myself in the shoes of the artist - not an easy task if
the artist is insane.
Strangely but similarly, I have trouble understanding art by the evil,
such as the work of misogynists and racists. Doesn't mean I can't appreciate
it or recognize it as art. It's just that I can never appreciate it to the
same degree as the work of someone whose mind I can understand.
>but yes, just being nuts doesn't make anyone great. at
>anything.
VERY good point.
Conversely, NOT being nuts doesn't exclude you from greatness. Often
have I seen perfectly sane and talented people express envy for the insane,
as if insanity would somehow lend them an increased creative ability. Worse,
I've seen people pretend to be crazy to appear artistically talented.
<idmcontent>Phlangephace comes to mind, if anyone remembers
that.</idmcontent>
- Cf
' - . _ . - ' ^ ' - . _ . - ' ^ ' - . _ . -
c h r i s t ø p h e r f ª h e y
. _ . - ' ^ ' - . _ . - ' ^ ' - . _ . - ' ^
xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
2 1 2 - 6 3 4 - 6 9 5 0 x 2 5 8
http://www.raremedium.com
- ' ^ ' - . _ . - ' ^ ' - . _ . - ' ^ ' - .