[quote=“Simms”]
… mmm… something about a village…[/quote
see pasolini’s solon to get the true horror!
Blame the teachers!
After all they are all pervs and pedos
Don’t forget the priests and little altar boys.
Sure, but that doesn’t make it the art school’s fault. If someone asks a woman out when he’s 18 and she says no, and he later becomes a serial rapist, it’s not her fault. And Hitler was not a poor artist. He just wasn’t good enough to get into the program he wanted to. The Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna. They even recommended he become an architect, based in part on his drawings, so it wasn’t even a complete rejection of his skills.
If getting rejected from a school turns you into a mass murderer, than the problem lies in your nature or the primary portions of your nurture - parents, siblings, extended family, long term relations with adults when you a child and so on.
If we give the Art School responsibility for his actions, than if someone posting at ILP goes on a murder spree after people disagreed with his ideas, than people posting here would be responsible.
Further, there are artists who went on to have success after being rejected by mainstream galleries, critics and schools.
Are you really saying that all schools should accept anyone into their programs just in case not accepting them means the person will kill several million?
Or develop a way of achieving the goals he has. I am sure success has been spurred ON by rejection in many case. I will show them. I mean, Hitler ended up trying to take over Europe, North AFrica and Russia. Surely thinking one could achieve this is more hubris than thinking one could find a way to improve as a painter.
That was well done, would you mind expanding upon those thoughts?
Right, with the knowledge that he hasn’t been going about them right so far.
These ridiculous historical “what ifs?” aside, often when a person’s art is criticized as unpleasant, realizing that failure is the only option, or at least assuming as much, he gives up on actual art, and simply works with the same base motive behind much of the worst art out there; self-worth through others.
Basically, in any endeavor, to let the opinions of others effect oneself emotionally, rather then simply absorbing any useful knowledge those opinions may contain, is to become a slave to others in that endeavor. Therefore any such achievement made (except incidentally) will never amount to more than the praise of their masters; who themselves may implicitly take the full credit for the actual products of the slave minded person’s labor.
Yes, in some way he has been gonig about it wrong. Categorizing it incorrectly, approaching the wrong people for their interest and/or support, choosing the wrong subjects/style/form for his skills, not having honed his skills enough and likely some other possible errors or heading off courses.
Well, he also did not get to get into an environment set up to hone people’s skills - I don’t know if it entailed any monetary support. IOW it was a step he considered valuable towards being an artist. This may have been partly correct. It can help to be around other artists, especially more experienced ones and be in a structured ongoing dynamic relation with them around your art. Some people do not need this, but most artists have had this. He might have fought to get very clear feedback on what he needed to improve, contacted other artists, perhaps ones not connected to that school and especially anyone who made it without going through a program like that one. He could have dived back into his work. Tried to come at it critically, really question if he was satisfied and if not, how not, then try to find out how to improve those areas - go to museums and see how others manage this, contact artists, sit in on classes, stalk professors, ask people on the street or in galleries and so on. Not that every potentially successful artist can become one if only he or she tries hard enough, but he sure shut down early. And he was not without talent.
It depends what you mean by affect one emotionally. If it stops you, or you try to please it simply to please it, these are serious problems. But if you are affected and move on in your art with integrity, the emotional upheavals can actually improve the art. Some people do cut off from the emotional dynamic and others are just constitutionally cut off from it, but for me it simply seems human, as a social mammal, to be affected by the reactions of others to what I create. It is what one does with those emotional reactions one has to their reactions that is either useful or damaging. Also there is a communicative act going on. What I or one creates does not need to hinge on the reactions of others, but most are not simply creating for the ether or purely for themselves. Could one really produce a work of art that no one else liked but which was great? Sounds more like a work of therapy or catharsis. That the mob has a distaste for it is one thing, that no peer finds any merit in it is important in some way and like must create an emotional reaction in the artist. If the artist gives up, or stops his or her own process to try to please them, then there is a loss.
I personally blame the aliens. Those bastards!
Yes, and some of the Cyanophyceae, for example the evil Tolypothrix:
This is the tough one, blame Freud, or the foreshadowing offsprings Adler and Eric Fromm. who may have gotten it all wrong, on the connection between Schopenhauer’s pessimism and consequent inferiority, re compensated with the will.
Or, Was Sartre right in the primary position of Being, over nothingness? If so, then, the reduction of Being into Nothingness is an apologia. The way out, if no exit, a nausea filled progression as we have found out.
Maybe what’s missing is the mistake of seeing a ‘return’ to coherency, as somehow unnatural. What if the reduction, including it’s attempt at an existential leap, is as Natural, as the Return,
which may happen.
Why? because of the test, the same Faustian test inherent in the book of Job, of testing men, as to their audacious prideful attempts at an overcoming.
This was a natural diversion as the temptation it’s self.
The ideological meltdown necessitated a repositioning of the dialectic, the material dialectic and it’s substance, the material.
What’s it all about? Why the temptation? It’s all about the the promised land, the return, the Eternal Return, on basis of the redemption? That may be all of it,