Art as a way of dealing with stupidity.

[ApeTheDog]

Today I saw a painting of Dali, and i wondered about his fascination with certain scientific things, and at the same time I wondered why so many great art was always made when the topics they were made about were unknown and unexplored by most.

I wonder if art does not thrive from society being stupid and ignorant about a subject, and I think it may very well be. Artists are people who play with ideas and concepts, and when you think about what playing is, you'll see that it's people who are a whole lot better than everybody else are who start playing. It is the guy who is ten times better than everybody else at football who will do tricks - to show off how far ahead of his peers he is. It's the child that is a lot smarter than his peers who will show off his intelligence. The artist who understands circles, time, science better than the rest of the people living who had no idea what science was - would perhaps be frustrated at his inability to talk about what he loved, and get rid of his frustrations by painting about it.

Here I'll draw a parallel with humor. I have noticed that humor is nothing more or less than a way to deal with misfortune. A joke is always dealing with pain. Could art not simply be a way of dealing with other peoples ignorance? I think it makes quite a bit of sense. Great artists are people who are misunderstood. Some artists simply wanted to express simple things that they knew were true, but which society simply was no ready for, or simply did not (want to/could) understand. And it is the artists who lived in a time period when almost nobody could get what they were talking about, who made the most impressive work.

I'm not sure if I can give a good example here, but I'll try. It is Van Gogh, who might have wanted to express the nature of his insanity, who was the best at painting it, because nobody in the entire world would listen to him. That is when he made his best work. Because that is when he fought hardest to show things. This is a bad example, but I don't know any other ones, except Dali again, who seemed to be fascinated with science, but then instead of portraying a clock as a circle, or a wheel as a circle - 'played' with the concept of what a circle was and made it a somewhat erratic figure - and in my idea he might have been doing that because he was so frustrated at how other people didn't share his way of looking at things. Just like the person who is always being told he must be a criminal because of his ethnicity will eventually also need to find a way to deal with it - and might become a comedian who makes jokes about it, or might eventually become what society has been thinking he is all this time.

I also in a way think that it's impossible for anybody to make art like Dali, nowadays, because society has changed - and nobody would be stuck with the same frustrations Dali was stuck with when he made his paintings. Nowadays, people get science better. Society is no longer the same - nobody would become fascinated with the same topics he (i'm assuming here) became fascinated with - and which are the topics that made him come up with the art he came up with.

Art and stupidity. Is there a correlation between how ignorant society is and how smart art is? Does it make sense to think that the more stupid society is about a subject - the more, in turn, artists will feel like they have to do the supernormal (and thus make great art) to express their truth? I hope this all made sense. I got this insight and it was fresh to me.

[coffeezombie]

Art and stupidity. Is there a correlation between how ignorant society is and how smart art is? Does it make sense to think that the more stupid society is about a subject - the more, in turn, artists will feel like they have to do the supernormal (and thus make great art) to express their truth? I hope this all made sense. I got this insight and it was fresh to me.

I think of art as more of a way of communicating "visions," visual art being necessary when mere words won't do. On the other hand, I doubt most artists cared whether anybody actually liked their art or not. The best art is art that "must" be created. The creator has no choice in the matter.

[nobarcode]

'Uncle Tim' was locked up in the joint for a joint. While there, he was given an examination that he, in large part, had created. Subsequently, he escaped up a telephone pole. Lost but found.

Of course he was insane, but an exhibit of surrealism reminded me of it. It was sort of a traveling show;;;that I saw this week in my hometown.

[ApeTheDog]

Coffeezombie - that is what art is. That's what it looks like. But I'm talking about the ideas behind art. Not about the physical painting, or what it does to people - but where it comes from. Where do the visions come from? What causes them?

Until recently, I didn't know - and now I think they are a counter-movement to currents in society that the artist picks up on, which other people don't. And the less other people see what the artist sees, the more force there is on his art - and the more beautiful it will be (found to be at a later time, when people do get it).

Nobarcode: You say of course he was insane. How do you know this? In many ways, the governing rules and standards of society determine who is insane, and who is not - I personally don't really believe in insanity. I don't think anybody can be sane or insane - just more so, or less so, like everybody else (wants you to be).

I would say that being insane is a plus for an artist, because you're almost guaranteed to see things that nobody else does - and that in turn would propell you to express those things. Almost in a "if I put it on a canvas, then at least I don't have to think about it anymore" - getting the meme out there, so to spreak.

[booyalab]

I dont think art has any conscious ideas behind it. The meaning is applied after the fact. edit: this is evidenced most by the fact that ideas and visuals come from different parts of your brain. When the right side of your brain is responsible for something, your left side tries to find the reason for it. When the left side of your brain makes a mistake, your right side feels bad...which might lead to artistic inspiration.

[ApeTheDog]

Booyalab: I believe that art critics, most of them, apply meaning to art, almost more to comment on themselves - the critic - than the piece of art. A lot of irrelevant and meaningless meaning is applied to art after the fact, yes.

I agree that the artist probably isn't conscious of what makes/drives him to make the art he does. I think he just picks up on something, wants to express it - and because he can't... because the thing he sees is msunderstood, ignored, or just not understood by anybody else, his subconscious tries to find another release for it.

The beautiful thing about it, in my opinion, is the relation between how ignorant society is about something, and how beautiful the art about that subject can be. There could be a correlation by how beautiful someone can write about love versus how little love there is in a society (Victorian times). How wonderful someone can make art about science, versus how little science is used and understood in society (Michelangelo). And I think that it is stupidity in society that drives great art. I really do think that the best art owes a lot of the credit to stupid people - and that this in turn is why we no longer get the great genius artists as we once did. All art is smaller in scale now - because there's not as much ignorance in society anymore. I also wonder if one wouldn't be able to consciously manipulate this dynamic to make art that catered specifically to what most people are morons about. Maybe the most relevant art made in the next few years will (should be) about religion.

That isn't entirely how I see it. It's more complicated than that - I can't quite put it in words well.

[nobarcode]

I was being sardonic about the 'insanity' bit. Maybe I should have honked instead of beeped.

[booyalab]

I also wonder if one wouldn't be able to consciously manipulate this dynamic to make art that catered specifically to what most people are morons about. .



remember that calvin and hobbes strip where Calvin signs his name in the snow and offers to sell it to Hobbes, who tells Calvin it doesn't match his furniture. Then Calvin says "The problem with being avant-garde is knowing who's putting on who"
I tried to find it, but I couldn't. So here are a bunch of other strips from Calvin's avant garde snow period.

http://nelson.oit.unc.edu/~alanh/comics/calvin_snowman-art-genius.png

http://nelson.oit.unc.edu/~alanh/comics/calvin_snowmen-avant-garde.png

http://nelson.oit.unc.edu/~alanh/comics/calvin_snowman-art-oeuvre.png

http://nelson.oit.unc.edu/~alanh/comics/calvin_snowmen-grant.png

[lexiphanic]

You win for posting calvin and hobbes.

[Ascending]

Why Bill? Why did you leave us?!

Ape: Honk!

[Burble]

I write songs, mostly to express myself; sometimes I like to have a message, make a splash, and a point for ignorant people. Of course, I really don't think they'll pick it up consciously, unless maybe they were to listen to the song repeatedly and study the lyrics.

I actually wrote a few songs on the theme of marijuana decriminalization, intended to make people think and possibly feel empathy. The hippy crowd at open mike night loved the songs, but I'm only preaching to the choir. Besides, what the hell does my opinion matter when there are bands like Kottonmouth Kings doing essentially the same thing?

[coffeezombie]

The beautiful thing about it, in my opinion, is the relation between how ignorant society is about something, and how beautiful the art about that subject can be. There could be a correlation by how beautiful someone can write about love versus how little love there is in a society (Victorian times). How wonderful someone can make art about science, versus how little science is used and understood in society (Michelangelo). And I think that it is stupidity in society that drives great art. I really do think that the best art owes a lot of the credit to stupid people - and that this in turn is why we no longer get the great genius artists as we once did. All art is smaller in scale now - because there's not as much ignorance in society anymore. I also wonder if one wouldn't be able to consciously manipulate this dynamic to make art that catered specifically to what most people are morons about. Maybe the most relevant art made in the next few years will (should be) about religion.


Not sure if I agree with you because:

1. Old stuff is usually considered "beautiful" regardless its worth in its present time period. A milennium from now, a Coke can might be considered "great art."

2. Some art in the past is considered beautiful because of its association with aristocratic society. Nobody thinks Nirvana is beautiful because every teenager could listen to them. If only people above a certain wealth level or with a noble title could see Nirvana, though, they would probably be classified as "great art."

[waxwing]

Art and stupidity. Is there a correlation between how ignorant society is and how smart art is? Does it make sense to think that the more stupid society is about a subject - the more, in turn, artists will feel like they have to do the supernormal (and thus make great art) to express their truth? I hope this all made sense. I got this insight and it was fresh to me.I think it makes sense.

If an artist is misunderstood, does he work harder to do what is great, or is there a greater impact simply because of the fact that he is misunderstood?

If a subject matter is misunderstood, then there must be a few who dare to break ground, exposing difficult ideas/truths/possibilites/visions. I think this may be the reason many artists become misunderstood --because they cross into uncharted territories.

[Google Monster]

I think most who are misunderstood,die misunderstood. Only later to be understood.

[Burble]

One thing I learned from art history: Great art is known for the impact it had. Often, the artist got nothing but flack in his/her lifetime; it was centuries later that some art historian credited him/her with a dramatic change in the cultural revolution of art.

[Pan]

I think the problem with this theory is the total ignorance most artists have of science and other areas of specialized learning. I don't think the average painter/writer/musician has any more knowledge of relativity than the average person. That used to not be the case, but knowledge is so specialized these days it's rare to find great artists who also know enough to be anywhere near the cutting edge. This is the bane of sci fi... the few authors who know enough hard science to be really interesting are usually piss-poor authors.

These days the only thing you can really expect a good writer to know more about than the average person is writing... which gets you books and movies about the act of artistic creation (the movie Adaptation for example, or Naked Lunch), but how many of those can we really stomach?

I guess if all you're claiming is along the lines of "people make art to express things other people don't get when expressed to them in plain language" then you might be on to something.

[Avengardh]

I consider myself an artist...and I love science.

It's interesting that you bring that up Ape because, many people tell me that my art reminds them of Dalí. They say is has the same feel. I don't really know.

More than one person has called me a "true artist", as much as that can imply, once again, I don't really know.

Are there more artists trying to express themselves if society is stupider? It's an interesting theory. Perhaps.
I think, partly, people are going to try to express themselves regardless.
But maybe it will just increase the type of art.

[runninginacircle]

Ha i had an art exhibition last may based on my personal interpretations of scientific and mathematical equations. know one understood it. ha. ...it was very frustrating. i'm going to continue doing it though. there's so much beauty in science and maths.