IF we use art to express how we feel about life, issues, beauty, war (goya comes to mind)etc how can you state "I think politics has no place in the studio"?

Why would it NOT have a place in a studio?
 

Goya did not show HIS feelings, no artist does, but tried to evoke in the viewer the potential of horror in mans nature. Defining man, and our revolt against god, against what mans growth. It was his people, so intense, but still he painted for, and knew many in, Napoleons brothers court. He also painted Maria Louisa as the hard bitch she was, but that was not political, he also loved the kings father, and painted him as a nice old coot. No politics involved.

Politics are particular to a time and place, and we cannot separate ourselves from it. So not art. Picasso did not show nazi planes droping bombs in Guernica, but mans base animal destructiveness. And he was a communist. Once you cross the line into the particular, you are an illustrator, a propogandist. Not a creative artist. Now, that is fine and can take skill, but it is about manipulation towards ones own views. And truth is never involved in that. We are all biased.

Besides, Palin is such an easy target, its best to leave to the comedians, its their turf, not ours. We just mess it up. But funny when in cartoon form and meant as a joke. Artists seldom have well formed senses of humor. Let the satirists do their job.
 

I didn't say anything about showing feelings, but how we feel about things is certainly expressed in our work.

Goya very clearly expressed how he felt about war and the politics of war in his paintings and etchings.
 

no, never the politics of war, a with all artists we know politics is transitory, art is not. He ahd friends on both sides, french adn spanish. One of his most beautiful portaraists of of a French generals son. Only the horrors that exist in a mans heart, war but one outlet of that beast.
 

Sorry Donald F. but your comment is mostly expressing 'What is art' according to you. It seems you have a very narrow view as to what makes a 'creative artist'.

Your point of view throws people like Michelangelo, DaVinci and even Goya into the realm of illustrator rather than creative artist. You imply that being an illustrator is less creative than being an artist (and therefore a lesser art). Not so.

Almost all art is created from the point of view of the artist (with exception to works created on behalf of another person) and therefore contain the bias of the artist and how they view the subject. That doesn't make the artist a propagandist (or maybe it does? A propagandist for the artist's personal point of view).

Propaganda is dependent upon intent. Art becomes propaganda when it is created to intentionally sway opinion to a particular way of thinking. However that doesn't make the artwork something less than 'art'.

It is possible to create artistic works that are an honest response to politics - even if they clearly show your political view. It's still an honest response not propaganda. It's expressing the artist's point of view.

Many artists do express their own feelings through their work (myself included on occasion) with the resulting artwork being a shared emotional experience as opposed to the artist trying to simply evoke a desired emotional response from (or purposely manipulate) the viewer.

Politics certainly does have a place in the studio. It's as valid a subject as capturing the vastness of a mountain range on canvas or splashing paint around in an abstract manner (and no less creative).
 

Un, no. Especially as I am a history major and rather hate propaganda, and artistic self expression, which is basically childish whining.

Do artists take on commisions that are for the clients glorification? Of course. but all great artists put their own spin on things, Michelangelo fought the Vatican to get his works done how he saw them to have their best effect, and differed in theology from official dogma. But he was no illustrator, which is a different craft, whether you feel it greater or lesser is up to you, but VERY different than creative art.

Now, Goya painted the Second aand Third of May also, the Second the uprising against the French showing Currasiers and Mamelukes fighting peasants. That was a history painting, done well after the war, and not his best work. The Third of May is a masterpiece. Why? Becaue it showed passion in the face of death, human striving for freedom and life. But not of any particular time or place or political idiom. The French firing squad is dressed quite generically, could easily be WWI Russian troops slaughtering the condemned.

Art is timeless, the best most moving because it strikes at our very being, who we are, our goals as humanity, not some particular time and place which is but a blip in human history, let alone the universes. Propaganda becomes stale the day after it is created, events change, perceptions mellow. It is disposable, as is pop art.

No, art and politics are mutually exclusive, comedy and drama are much better vehicles, but even then are at their best when probing the human heart, not a transitory event and ideas. Shakepeare transcends his events, and cuts to human existence. finding the essential in each situation, that which lives after all those involved are dead and gone.

I think you got it backwards son. You are making the same arguments used by those who created for the Nazi and Communist regimes, and will get the same forms as a result. Shallow ideas that are not well thought out, and soon enough enter the dustbin of history. My true field. As well as coaching basketball and being a farmer and gourmand.

as always
Art collegia delenda est
 

Donald, I think you're looking at art from the point of view of a History Major which enables you to say 'Art is Timeless' yet art can also be 'of its time' and be 'disposable'. It's still 'art'.

Would Michelangelo's work be less 'great' if his images (as he painted them) were exactly in line with the Vatican's theology and no argument occurred? Just because he fought for his own spin, how does that make him more creative than an illustrator? He didn't write the stories he was painting but he did interpret them.

My problem is that people seem to think illustration lacks creative interpretation of that which is being illustrated. Which is the impression I get from your comments. In doing so it suggests illustration is a lessor art. It isn't. It may have a different starting point but the outcome is a result of the artist's interpretation and vision.

All Goya does in his paintings is interpret his own idea and makes it generic enough for us to project our own interpretation onto the ideas he put forward. Thus his work can seem relevant to any number of similar situations and enables it to be timeless.

Not all art is timeless and nor does it try to be. To make an analogy... a paper cup is still a cup even if you use it once and throw it away. It's served its purpose as a cup, even if that was just a 'blip' in the big scheme of all things known as a cup.

Creating art about politics is a valid form of art. It may be fleeting in history but still valid as art.
 

The problem is you view art as being literary, taht the story is all, when it is almost irrelevant to art. Its resonance to people is all taht coutns, like in music, do the words matter so much? NO, msot of the best music has no words. And can still be felt even when in another language.

Illustration is an applied art, it serves a specific purpose,a s does propaganda, a subgroup of illustration. Creative art, michelangelos for example, is far from this. It touches the very basis of humanity, who WE are, not I. Not now. His arguing was to free up his tretment of the figures, nto teh story line, which is obviously not too adaptable. The powre and eneergy of God creating the moon and sun is one of the great works of humanity, but would work in any religion. His God giving the spark of life to Adam also, but truly like the other much better myself. Life IS energy. Story lines are not.

There are various forms of art, but to compare a poster by say this guy who Dion and Brian get mad at, who did the poster of Obama but stole it from a commie Cuban guy, is far from the same thing. The intent is completely different, and Purpose is everything, and leads to how one works, and its effects. Which is why one can use communist propaganda for any political force, its all the same, having the same ends. Creative art does not. Cezanne was not a paper hanger.
 

OK, this is the issue. I looked at your site, you are an illustrator, period. Fine. I dont tell you how to illustrate what you do, but the problem is all these art schools turning out kids who dont feel art, who dont truly get what great art is. Just because you call yourself an artist doesnt mean you understand ALL of it, no more than a science teacher in HS understands Quantum mechanics or string theory.

But in our field, you got the science teacher demanding to be treated like they are the equivalent of running the atom accelorator in Switzerland. Because we have no definitions as to what art is, and isnt, and the various fields within it. You just dont get it, thats ok, mabye you register more to poetry or music at a deeper level, or literature.

But we got art schools turning out the equivalent of pop music wannabes, and then they try to claim that all music is pop, and they are the equal of jazz and European musics such as classical, romantic, baroque and atonal. Sorry, but thats absurd. What I aim to accomplish is something completely different, I am in Goyas field, not a poster maker. I understand and feel what he did, even if I never accomplish it myself. But you dont. Not many country western types can understand bebop, which is basically musical analytical cubism. 747.

Not all can understand and appreciate great painting, thats fine, there are other forms of spiritual creativity. But what we got today is the equivalent of kids coming up with bizarre sports like curling, so they can claim to be the best, and the equal of Michal Jordan. LOL for days baby. A'int gonna happen. And history will decide. Sometimes history is a week. Which is about the life of political propaganda.

ACDE baby. All day long.
 

Did I start this debate or was it you Corrine?..lol

I just don't like art and politics as I don't like being told how to think, it's as throw-away as a newspaper (which is not necessarily a bad thing), and politics is such an ugly game that it lowers art. Kind of like putting big ice cubes in a glass of fine red wine.. you're dirtying or diluting something wonderful.

I'm not saying its not art, it's just not my thing. I also think patriotism and religion have no place in art either, but that's just my opinion. I cant imagine what art history would look like without religion though as it has prompted some great work over the years.

Donald, I don't get mad at Shepard Fairey.. I think it's Brian that has some issues with him and a poster he created/copied. I think it's impossible not to steal images now, whether consciously or unconsciously.

I also think art IS self expression Donald. That self expression may be trying to convey a message, whether it be the horror in mans nature, the beauty of the landscape, or how to get through personal issues, but it's still all self expression. Even the coldest artists with no feeling at all in their work are expressing themselves through their art.

It's impossible to work at the easle for any longer than a minute and not express yourself. If youre not expressing yourself, youre not moving, so youre not creating anything.
 

Well yes, self expression is there, but its there in everything we do, like the shoes we buy, the food we eat, the kind of car we buy. But has nothing to do with arts focus adn primarey reason for being. Its just part of being human, but most of what we express is silly desires, not anything to do with who we are as a species, just individual particulars, that matter no more than any other of the six billion humans on this planet, or billlions who have comoe before. Just irrelevant, not absent.

And religion is not all about manipulating others for ones own benefit, it most certainly is a basic necessity fo humankind, it has always been around, in every culture, and always will. Now how you interpret spirituality, how you see its elevating human existence is most certainly one of the main themes of art. Doesnt have to be Yeshua, or Siddhartha, or Ahura Mazda. The evolution of this basic human need is at the core of humanity, it covers death, birth, life, sacrifice, love. It msut be addressed, or art becomes weak from being less.

Thats part of the problem of contemporary art, the fear of dealing with the concept of God. I dont fear it any more than I fear the lack of an afterlife, which I see as so comnpletley in mans self interst it had to be made up. Would YOU as God want to deal with billions and billions of whining humans forever? Death doesnt scare me, not living life completely and passionately does. I couldnt live with cowrdice, death comes to us all, why fear it? Most do, and so dont deal with it, and as we live so long now, we feel we are immortal and dont have to deal with its messiness. Except in silly syrupy, sentimental ways. Over cats and puppies and such. That is anthropomorphising animals, and so living through them, selfishness and self absorbed.

All art has dealt with the sense of gods existence, in whatever form, but mostly not in the terms of religion. Picasso, Matisse, Gauguin, arts all over the globe. It is key to who we are, and must be discussed, and dealt with in art of it becomes weak. And so we are there.

Art collegia delenda est.

PS, yeah sorry, got you mixed with Brian, just an old guy with slippin memory. Un, not. But do apologize, confusing you with a Yank, is that an insult down there?
 

*sighs* Donald my work is illustrative but I'm not an illustrator (at least not in my opinion). I'm easy to write off as an illustrator because my work is fun, light and humorous. Encouraging people to smile and laugh is what I do. That's timeless, uplifting and part of the human condition. I like to think my art isn't linked to 'time, place or events'.

I don't view art as being literary at all. What I like to paint is not what I think about art. Some of the best art is a total abstraction of subject, shape, form etc.

The thing is, whilst I agree there is such a thing as 'good' art and 'bad' art those definitions come down to the individual. You just know when you're looking at great art. You don't need someone to tell you it's great.

Great art is a feeling that resonates within you and connects with you as a person. (The same goes for music and literature for that matter). The beauty is that it's not the same for all of us.

A propaganda poster may not be on the same level as Michelangelo's work at the Vatican but it's still art none the less. Some people are moved very strongly by propaganda art. They connect with it and rally behind it. Religious imagery has been propaganda for God for centuries (at least that's how some of us see it).

In the big scheme of the universe Humanity is just a blip. As a history major you should know that much of history is told through art and that art linked to time and place gives us many clues as to the events and thinking of the day.
 

Yes, adn msot art is ilustation, only worth preserving as a record of the day, to study humanities growth and beginings. In itself most is just ehn.

Yes, there are many forms of at, for diffferent purposes, nothing wrong with that, jsut as there are different forms of literature for different things. Proust is different from Faulkner is different from Tolkien is different from Clavel. But they are different, and definitely not of the same quality or level of skill and intensity. Anyone who claims warhol is the same as Gauguin, well, not worth talking about them are they? Ignorance is bliss, or so they say.
 

*sighs too* lol.. Donald, of course religion is about manipulating others, that's all it is. It has very little to do with god and a LOT to do with control, manipulation and the dumbing down of society.

Man can't think for himself as he's too much of a danger. So I'm glad we have religion to control us as a species. Sure we have the odd religious war here and there, but imagine a world where man thought he was his own god.. Jesus.. scary..

I don't think there will always be religion either.. as another million years or so might see us evolve to some kind of understanding creature that doesnt need control to prevent self destruction. But yeah, will our earth put up with us for that long?

Also, I do believe in god, as much as life, just not religion, or any other man-made dogma designed to control man.

And, being mistaken for a Yank will be an insult in any country if you guys vote for Sarah Palin!! I'll be embarrased to call myself human if a country of 300 million can vote for her. I can't even see the point of Obama campaigning to be honest.. common sense says he has won.. unless of course, America announces to the world that it is severely retarded and has chosen to put a complete retard in the white house..lol America will never be taken seriously again if she takes control.
 

Um, I thought we already had a retard in the White House. The precedent is set, for the female super retard President. No way will McCain alst eight years, he has gotten senile in jsut the last eight since he last made sense, in 2000.

Damn getting tired, about half an hour more to go. 1030 our time. See ya in the AM. Cant even keep my aussies and yanks straight, hope I dont call you a kiwi, what happens then? Armageddon?
 

The current whitehouse retard can be forgiven as a temporary mental lapse on America's part, but to do it again, knowing full well what youre doing, is unforgivable.

And yeah, I don't have a problem with kiwis. We have a friendly sporting rivalry, but we're not much different to each other. It's hard to hear the difference between them saying six and sex, but that's ok..lol. I dont have a problem with any country, just organizations and groups that manipulate and control people. I wouldnt make a good employee or loyal member of a group. I sometimes wish I was more sheep-like as it's easier to live that way, but easy isnt always interesting either.
 

Shouldnt the Palin sign say Dope?

And as she is closer related to our socialist cousins to the north, can we declare war on Alaska, and take their oil for nothing? She was in an Alaskan separtist movemnt, sounds like provocation enough to nationalize. Their accents worse on the nerves than Southerners, and Kiwis for you.