I got here via recommendation from perspi, and as a survivor of art school, let me just say AMEN, AND AMEN.
This attitude in academia is much of the reason why, having gotten my bachelor's, I went to work painting murals in people's homes rather than go after a master's degree. I wanted the hell out of that world where the worth of a piece of art was judged according to how much it "challenged the viewer" (which was generally code for being visually unpleasant and/or offensive). I didn't want to live in the ivory tower and be an Art Star in NYC and make things that were meaningless (at best, or hurtful at worst) to anyone outside a certain tiny, overeducated elite.
The notion that art must be antagonistic is really a very modern idea that isn't supported by the art history we all had to learn. I know this, yet I'm right there with you in having to remind myself that there's absolutely no reason to look down on myself for making art that people actually enjoy and want to own.
I don't know much about Elizabeth Bear; never having read her books, my main familiarity is with seeing them in the bookstore and then seeing a little of her in the whole Racefail mess, which I mostly stayed clear of to preserve my own sanity.
However, reading the quote above is enough to make this artist not want to read much else of hers. Storytelling is an art. There's no need to cast it as somehow inferior to the Great Responsibility of the Artist in order to elevate one's own status. Bleh.
And then people in the Art World moan that the Great Unenlightened Public doesn't care about art! Oh noes!
As if it couldn't possibly be their own fault for jabbing the Public with cattle prods whenever the Public approaches.
no subject
I got here via recommendation from
This attitude in academia is much of the reason why, having gotten my bachelor's, I went to work painting murals in people's homes rather than go after a master's degree. I wanted the hell out of that world where the worth of a piece of art was judged according to how much it "challenged the viewer" (which was generally code for being visually unpleasant and/or offensive). I didn't want to live in the ivory tower and be an Art Star in NYC and make things that were meaningless (at best, or hurtful at worst) to anyone outside a certain tiny, overeducated elite.
The notion that art must be antagonistic is really a very modern idea that isn't supported by the art history we all had to learn. I know this, yet I'm right there with you in having to remind myself that there's absolutely no reason to look down on myself for making art that people actually enjoy and want to own.
I don't know much about Elizabeth Bear; never having read her books, my main familiarity is with seeing them in the bookstore and then seeing a little of her in the whole Racefail mess, which I mostly stayed clear of to preserve my own sanity.
However, reading the quote above is enough to make this artist not want to read much else of hers. Storytelling is an art. There's no need to cast it as somehow inferior to the Great Responsibility of the Artist in order to elevate one's own status. Bleh.
And then people in the Art World moan that the Great Unenlightened Public doesn't care about art! Oh noes!
As if it couldn't possibly be their own fault for jabbing the Public with cattle prods whenever the Public approaches.