English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Or is there art in the world without the need for artists to exist?

2007-07-25 15:09:36 · 12 answers · asked by OrtegaFollower 2 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

12 answers

I think the artist is the art Creative thoughts in the minds of humanslead to amazing works of arts it begins with the creative thoughts in your mind...............that create through your mind the master piece of the Art presented film , photography, music, art, poetry, books etc...anything creative............the artist is the Art that he creates he never precedes it the art precedes the artist :)))

2007-07-26 02:35:43 · answer #1 · answered by Rita 6 · 1 0

The modernist would say that you need an artist to create art, just as you need a mother to give birth to a baby.

However,...

The postmodernist would content that it is the art that makes the artist, just like it is the baby that makes the mother.

People may scratch their head and say that cannot be, but think of it this way: If the baby is not born (dies in the womb or something like that), then the woman is no longer a mother. She is only a mother by giving birth to the baby. When the baby comes, then and only then, is she technically labeled a mother. Likewise, until art comes about from a person, that person is not an artist. It is the art that produces the artist.

2007-07-25 15:29:03 · answer #2 · answered by Think 5 · 1 1

You asked: "does the artist precede the art?"

Michelangelo would respond: "I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free." Meaning, the art was already in the chunk of raw marble because the concept was already alive in his brain. Once he visualized it, it became real.

Yours is a complicated question, and depends on how one defines "art". If you define it using the common definition, then one could argue that the artist does precede the art he or she creates - even though Michelangelo might disagree.

If instead you broaden the definition to include masterpieces created by nature, then the answer to your question would depend on whether or not one believed in God. Nature could certainly qualify as "there being art in the world without the need for an artist".

Nature is the art of God
— Dante

I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.
— Frank Lloyd Wright (1869-1959)

The natural is so awesome that we need not go beyond it.
— Ruth Hurmence Green, (1915-1981)

Ask yourself whether the dream of heaven and greatness should be waiting for us in our graves -- or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth.
— Ayn Rand, (1905-1982)

I feel no need for any other faith than my faith in human beings. Like Confucius of old, I am so absorbed in the wonder of earth and the life upon it that I cannot think of heaven and the angels.
— Pearl S. Buck

Heaven is under our feet as well as over our heads.
— Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

Happiness is to see the world in a grain of sand,
and heaven in a wild flower,
to hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
and eternity in a single hour.
— William Blake

2007-07-25 16:17:51 · answer #3 · answered by HawaiianBrian 5 · 1 0

An Artist is influenced by everything that they expereince in their lives so the effects that influenced the creation of the art have always been their but the way that the Artist creates a specific form is their own personal adaptation of all the effects they have experienced to. both are true.

"The Artists interpertaion of the art is just as artistic as the art itself"

2007-07-25 15:17:22 · answer #4 · answered by Tim 2 · 0 0

Although the natural world is beautiful, it is not art in the human sense. I believe all of creation is the artwork of God... but I don't think that's what we're talking about.

So, yes... artist precedes art. No art without Man. Because art implies an installed interpretation, and without a guiding hand, there is only "what is" not "what might be."

2007-07-25 15:14:05 · answer #5 · answered by Ozmoo 1 · 0 0

That's a trick question, isn't it? If people do not see things as art, there would be no need for an artist, i.e., God is the one true artist out there,or if their were no artist there would be no art. I totally agree with David C above also. Great Philosophical question, it really gets one to thinking!

2007-07-25 16:11:38 · answer #6 · answered by sweetpeasmum 4 · 0 0

No, it's definitely the artist that creates the art. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and their gift is enabling others to see what they see too.

Artists come in many shapes and forms.

Music is an art. So is Singing.

Painting, sculpting, even graffiti.

Hairstyling, makeup...architecture, designing, even cooking...all art. One has to envision it for it to be.

2007-07-25 15:32:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Yes. The artist organized this world. And to know what is you must know what isn't.

2007-07-25 15:42:32 · answer #8 · answered by Armchair Nutritionist 5 · 1 0

no, the artist needs to glean the conceptual components from the experiences of her life and integrate them into her artwork.

2007-07-25 15:16:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

you have to ask what is art, that is a perfectly personal perception in reality

2007-07-25 15:17:55 · answer #10 · answered by Friend 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers