The artist as Critical Thinker

The Critical Thinker as artist

First, for this essay, I wish to define the artist as a creator of the concrete forms that give credibility to the abstract ideas of a society or culture. Since we are creatures driven by artificial symbols we need more artists capable of the concretization of the symbols we live by.

In “Art and Artist”, when speaking about primitive humans, Otto Rank says--"The urge for abstraction, which owed its origin to a belief in immortality and created the notion of the soul, created also the art which served the same ends, but led beyond the purely abstract to the objectivizing and concretizing of the prevailing idea of the soul."

The creative personality makes use of the art-ideology of her culture in a critical manner. He abides in it, but constantly struggles against it in a critical thinking manner. S/he does not merely “trust but verify”; he analysis and forms a concrete expression that is intended to present a critical evaluation of the ideologies of the epoch. However, no matter how strong the personality of the artist may be, s/he is deeply embedded within the ideologies of society and thus greatly affected by the same.

In a chapter titled “The Artist’s Fight with Art” Rank focuses upon the dual role the artist often must play. Naturalistic art, which grows out of wo/man’s sense of superiority, represents man’s imitative command of his world; “on the contrary, in abstract art, which is born of a sense of dependence, he appears as self-creative.”

Otto rank has, as some conclude, arrived at “this knowledge of the artist’s soul and of the creative process…Because he has seen this process as a phase in that larger creative activity by which man, being man, has built up the totality of civilization. Thus, specifically, he has been able to interpret the development of creature to self-conscious creator in the course of the ages and, above all, the process whereby art gradually becomes differentiated from religion and tends finally to take religion’s place…he solves the old riddle of “imitation” in art, proving that the creative activity is always a free and by intention a transcendent one, of which “imitation” is but a cultural mood and method.”

Rank tells me that the artist is a creator who gives concrete form to abstract ideas. This artist may be an Einstein, Picasso, architect, engineer, or even you. Do you ‘buy’ that as a possibility?

Seems to me that you're just bastardizing the word/term "artist".

An "artist" is also a person who takes an ax to a tree in order to cut it down to build a cabin (abstract concept). See? You've just applied the term "artist" to anyone and anything that does something.

Baron Max

Seems to me that you're just bastardizing the word/term "artist".

An "artist" is also a person who takes an ax to a tree in order to cut it down to build a cabin (abstract concept). See? You've just applied the term "artist" to anyone and anything that does something.

Baron Max

His last sentence would have served his point better if he had named and especially creative architect, but the rest of his post points to someone who introduces something fairly new in the move from abstract to concrete - puns possible.

Art doesn't have to be about abstract ideas, nor does it have to be about new ideas. Portraits are art, and they're portraying very tangible people, and most of them portray in well-known, well-tried manner.

whitewolf

Yes, you are correct, we see all kinds of art work on cereal boxes. But I would not consider these artists to fit my definition of artist. These artists are designers, they are workmen rather than creative artists. A painter of portraits can certainly be considered as creating in that they are creating the person in the portrait rather than the body in the portrait.

But I would not consider these artists to fit my definition of artist.

So you just change accepted definitions whenever you want?

Baron Max

So you just change accepted definitions whenever you want?

Baron Max

An observation of the utmost importance.

Unfortunately, it's all too often within these forums that people tend to this bizarre kind of behaviour. Perhaps they don't realize that definitions are binding, or perhaps they simply think that definitions can be flexible without affecting changes in the purported theory.
Regardless of which mistake it is, what's scariest is the total failure to even recognize this most grievous of errors.
Socrates would tear these folk a new asshole...

With respect to coberst however, I must applaud him for at least including a definition for the terms he's going to make use of. More often than not in here, people simply toss terms about simply assuming that anyone can read their mind.....

whitewolf

Yes, you are correct, we see all kinds of art work on cereal boxes. But I would not consider these artists to fit my definition of artist. These artists are designers, they are workmen rather than creative artists. A painter of portraits can certainly be considered as creating in that they are creating the person in the portrait rather than the body in the portrait.

WTF? Of course designers are artists. Their work demands creativity and they are specially trained to create this art effectively, in a manner that will appeal to most consumers. You won't buy a cerial box that looks ugly to you. All artists are workmen: they intend to sell their work and they are often commissioned to do their work. Through most of art history, artists were commissioned to do work, were dictated exactly what to paint and how to paint it.

But do you see, a painter of a traditional portrait is not inventing any new way. What do you mean the person rather than the body? Every person has a body. Explain yourself.

whitewolf

Anyone with drawing skill can paint a body but it takes an artist to paint a personality.

I think "sensual form" works better in this definition than "concrete form".

Anyone with drawing skill can paint a body but it takes an artist to paint a personality.

They don't paint anyone's "personality" ....all that kind of bullshit is what viewers "claim" they can see. Which, of course, is a fuckin' lie. Ain't no one can look at a real person and "see" their personality ...yet you think some fuckin' artist can paint one? ....LOL!!! :D

Baron Max

The details I place around you, Baron, in my sketch of you, and the action I capture you in may reflect your personality if those you know collectively agree.

The details I place around you, Baron, in my sketch of you, and the action I capture you in may reflect your personality if those you know collectively agree.

If they ain't lying through their fuckin' teeth to sound arty and worldly and knowledgeable!

Big fuckin' "IF", ain't it?

But just remember, it's not the people that know me that must see it, it's people who DO NOT know me ......but by seeing my portrait, they can "see" my personality. And regardless of what you say, there ain't no one can do that! People make a big deal about the Mona Lisa, and her "personality", but what are they seeing? Ahhhhhhh, yes, ....they see just what they want to see, not the real Mona Lisa!

Baron Max

You're right. Someone must verify the validity of symbols as credible representations of abstract ideas; someone close to the source and subject of the ideas. Then they must explain this to the viewing masses. Then this must be repeated through generations.

I think "sensual form" works better in this definition than "concrete form".

I think you have a good point. I like the word 'concrete' because it seems to be like cold water in the face. I makes a clear statement with force.

The details I place around you, Baron, in my sketch of you, and the action I capture you in may reflect your personality if those you know collectively agree.


Yes, I would place Baron in a sand box with lots of video game toys, like guys shooting one another and blood spurting about and a grin on the Baron's face while he throws sand on the other kids.

Yes, I would place Baron in a sand box with lots of video game toys, like guys shooting one another and blood spurting about and a grin on the Baron's face while he throws sand on the other kids.

So your idea of a "critical thinker" is to use your "higher intelligence" to mock and denigrate others that don't fully agree with you??? Hmm.

Baron Max

Wait, conflict. Artists create art, hence artist turn abstract ideas into concrete ones?

Otherwise intresting, if useless considering it's just using someone elses ideas, with little actual input.