posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:53 AM
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
Obviously you misunderstood my point. I was not speaking of a romanticised view of the matter, not the "art for art´s sake" idea, which is bogus.
There is nothing wrong with artists earning money for their work.
What I meant is that art has to be created with the intention of carrying a message, a value, an emotion or an experience. Much like sports, art
itself is unproductive, it has no tangible benefit or output. But it is the nature of art that it acts as a catalyst to what the onlooker´s brain
makes of it.
There are of course many grey areas, and defintions of such complicated cultural concepts are naturally highly debated - one extreme being Joseph
Beuys´ mantra that "Everything is Art". Furthermore, there are thousands of excellent craftsmen for every actual artist, craftsmen that often are
more proficient in their trade than said artists, but they are missing the genuine spark that connects the artwork to the brain.
I personally am of the opinion that art starts where it is not slave to a function - and ornamenting a weapon to turn it into male jewellery is
slaving it to a function. I can enjoy it, I can like to look at it, but that is mere playing with my sense of style, not my deeper emotions.
[edit on 30/7/2009 by Lonestar24]