I really don't believe people who say they only create for themselves
with disregard for an an audience
If a tree falls in the forest.......
yes art, can be personal therapy but then it's just that -------piddling
I piddle all the time because I have no care if anybody cares what I have to
say I HAVE TO piddle because it's my expression.
But my expression is only art when I want somebody to see that what I have
to say is something important enough not to be piddling. That happens for
me sometimes and I will spend hours and days sometimes years making that
communication visually valid.
Piddling is hobby art making is purposeful and intended - it must
and maybe that viewing is discovered long after the piddling But then I
suspect all "great art" started without regard to the audience that
followed. And certainly piddling should never be discouraged. Who knows?
> Does, or can, an artist create something solely for her/himself, with no
> intention of ever sharing it with others to elicit a response from those
> around her/him?
I wonder if you would ask this question of a musician? a scientist? or a
mathematician or an athlete
or a philosopher ? Larry?
Why is art this "other thing" that seems to be so elusive? I suspect it's
because we maintain some notion of "rules" and find the piddling contrary to
the rules and turn off the piddling to all but those that "have to do
We have to make room for bad piddling that doesn't meet our standards of
proficiency. I just want to throw out the rubrics and the standards and
celebrate piddling. And maybe within the freedom, find a voice or many
voices that can't meet the standards but are piddling away.
Poor Howard Gardner who tried to say that "other " intelligences exist
but we put it into proficiencies that disregard the intelligence.
Just can't seem to find a way to evaluate the affective, can we?