Re: Extropic Art: Re: Why? (was R' Arts Post (Was Re: Extropic

E. Shaun Russell (
Sat, 25 Sep 1999 21:25:28

Natasha (and Nadia) wrote:
>>> > Is it to prove one's ability?

>>For this Muse, it is different, I *definetely* paint and create to prove
>>myself. Not that I need the approval of *all* people, but if everyone hated
>>my work I would be very crushed. I consider myself a very good artist,
but I
>>like to be seen, heard and liked.

So then, is your need for that approval an emotional response to your creative ability? Who is it you are creating for?

>Ha! I can just image you proving to yourself and the world that you are
>having fun -:) I'm having fund, damn it - don't pay attention to the
>masterpiece, just think of it as fun!

But again, it comes back to the question of why you are creating art in the first place. Whether it is sculpture, fugue, haiku, koan or cloisonee ceramics, there is the underlying basis of creation...and I am asking what the very core incentive is for that creation. Past and present artists have called the incentive "God-sent inspiration," others have invoked muses. However, what I have never heard among artists of any variety (and I, of course, do *not* stand outside that picture) is a rational explanation for mankind's inclination to create art. Creation requires passion, focus and ability, but above all, it requires incentive...or as it is commonly called, inspiration. But why? What does an artist really create for? Such questions as posited in my initial post and this one are not intended to sound antagonistic, but to instead clear up an ambiguous area which has remained grey for many years: the consumation of reason with art.

>>>>And again, what *is* the
>>>>purpose of art?

>>Yeah , you might as well ask, what is the purpose of creation, or what is
>>the purpose of expression? (snip)

So why don't I ask then: what *is* the purpose of expression? Is there not a purpose? I believe that all things have a reason, and all things have a purpose. I am sure that art does as well, but I think that the main reason that many scientifically-minded people cannot give a lot of credence to art in general is that is has no defined self evident logic. However, I am positive that there is as much logic within the *need* to create art as there is in the selection of colors in a painting, words in a poem and notes in a symphony.

>>And again not to hammer in a point, it is a trained ear that hears the
>>subtley of beats and the scientific instrument that measures the
>> and both are important to understanding the beast...
>I got some more nails.

Though I agree with this statement to an extent, I have a couple reservations. I am not inclined to paint or draw and have no visual art theory whatsoever; visual art techniques and methods are mostly unknown to me. However, I can honestly say that I love paintings such as Edvard Munch's _The Scream_ and Breughel's _...Fall of Icarus_. Likewise, I am enraptured by Frank Lloyd Wright's architechture, but possess no architechtural skills or leanings. In essence, I am not *trained* to see the beauty of the art, but see beauty nonetheless. Perhaps my untrained eye is drawn by something deeper than the means to the end...

E. Shaun Russell	Extropian, Musician, ExI Member	 <KINETICIZE *YOUR* POTENTIAL>

"The reason I'm involved with to end the carnage."
				      -Robert Bradbury, Extro-4