Is the artist's primary fuction to create beauty or provoke thought?

Answer 1

I think, both.

Answer 2

Many artist's have a mission statement or even a statement for each individual piece of work. While many people believe it is the artist's function to create beauty, provoke thought, or both, some artists choose to do neither while others work on the basis of some other intent such as simply producing something that's marketable. Regardless, an artist does not have a set primary function. Artists do what they feel they are suited to do and do not work under the rigid guidelines of a profession unless they are working on a commissioned piece.

Answer 3

Both, I think. Beauty that is created with no purpose is, but has not always been (think of Renaissance, or Greek art) an empty vase with no flowers in it -however beautiful the vase.
On the other hand, to just provoke thought is no art by itself. It's the water without the vase, so where does the water go ? It's not art, it is provocation.
Of course, the art of a genius like Salvador Dali contains loads of provocation and even controversy. But that is not why he is a great artist !

Answer 4

An artists function is to create. It can be anything. It doesnt have to provoke thought or be beautiful. Some artwork is made to show you the ugly of the world to make you think and some people do make gorgeous pieces to "wow" the eye. It is up to the artist whether or not they want to get a point across. Sometimes they do want you to think because its a process to get across a important economic problem.

"It's in the eye of the beholder!"

Answer 5

The artist's primary function is to create art, as s/he sees it. The beholder either sees beauty or is provoked to some line of thinking, or is not. It is not up to the artist.

Answer 6

It depends on the artist. There are many different forms of art, some focus on provoking thought and conversation, but sometimes art is just meant to be something beautiful to enjoy looking at.

Answer 7

An artist's primary function is to create. Whether it is beautiful or provokes thought is irrelevant.

Answer 8

Art is so subjective, but a good artist can do both. Any image can be thought-provoking...bombings in Baghdad, for example provoke thought. But this is not necesarily an image one would like to display, share and meditate upon. I believe that art can be ironic and humorous or serious and 'deep'. But really good art, I believe, uplifts the soul in some way.

Answer 9

Neither. At a very basic level, an artist's primary function is to communicate. Whether that communcation involves beauty, death, ideas, or even the lack of anything mentioned, there is still some sort of communication going on between the artist and the viewer.

Even if the artist never shows their work, and it's purely for catharsis, he or she is still communcating on some level, even if it's only with themselves.

Answer 10

I am an artist.
I 've been trying to come up with an artists statement for 3 days.
I just need to create art for my own spiritual growth. I choose to focus on the beauty in nature, other artists don't focus on making 'beautiful art. I put a huge amount of thought into art I don't think my simple landscapes cause most people to think.so what I am saying is artists create because they need to, not for what others will do in reaction to it.

Answer 11

It seems that the ideals have changed since the early-mid 1900s. I personally think the Dada artist shifted the importance from both aesthetic quality and idea to just the idea. Before, we had Cezanne emphasizing form beautifully, and picasso's wonderfully political Guarnica. But upon Duchamp's work, it was all downhill. Granted, his work does play a large role in the "beauty in the eye of the beholder" issue, a urinal ("fountain"), or defaced print of mona lisa (L.H.O.O.Q.) had almost no element of artistic talent. I think good art should strive to have a healthy balance of both.