Do artists have a responsibility to speak out?

she. I believe Timebandit is a woman.

I think we're blowing timebandits statement out of proportion here...I do believe he said speaking to people outside your immediate vicinity after 30 years...that still doesn't require some achieve pop star status to be an artist. After all he was seemingly willing to use Van Gogh as artist worth looking at. I actually think he probably agrees with your last post as all he ever seemed to be trying to say is that an artist should have something interesting to say.

Does Van Gogh really have something that interesting to say?  Ya there are some nice colours, the expressive curvy and wavy lines were a welcome change and I'm sure lot's of us can relate in some way to his angst ills of modern society point of view but he was also a bit of an obsessive mess of a person.  While that's interesting I'm don't believe it's any more interesting than what my next door neighbours 1yr old son produces.  However, he did leave behind all the letters which gave academics lots of fuel and fits nicely into the story of art history they wrote.

I once asked someone studying music in Ghana why they chose Ghana, the answer I got was that lots of other academics had already written about music in Ghana...apparently it's preferred to study something that has already been studied so you can make references?

Timebandit wrote:

I think there's an enormous difference between creating something to entertain oneself and being a working artist. You're thinking more along the lines of a dabbler, someone who paints or writes as an outlet, but not as a vocation. I'm curious, though, how do you create a community by creating something that is limited? Should it not speak to others?

Well I was excited about the 'immediate vicinity' part of your comment.  I think communicating through artistic endeavours within a small community amongst people you know is of tremendous value in and of itself but I want to go farther and say if people want to make art just for themselves that should not be discounted either.

Timebandit wrote:

One could argue that there are universal themes that transcend cultures. 

Maybe there are universal themes.  What makes art interesting for me is expressing things in the language of a particular culture.  Otherwise it's just the same old story we've heard before.  It might be the language of 1 or the language of a province or a country. In order to understand it for what the artist intended you have to understand something about the context of it's creation.  In the case of written work you might even have to learn a new written language or when it's the same language the subtle nuances the creator ascribes to words.  In the case of mass produced art the language is that of mass culture.  A spokesperson artist loosely defined would be someone who create art about one culture in the language of another culture.

There is not a work of art that has been created who's beauty can be agreed upon by all people.  For me it will always be the dabblers I find interesting and particularly those who do many things but still want to share a moment of creativity and start a dialouge with me every now and again rather than always asking me to go look at someone elses culture.  I don't think we need to share that with anyone else and I don't think anyone can appreciate it the same way by merely observing it because the themes include celebrating our own creative potential and time spent together.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Ken Burch

@ Fidel

Come on, you guys. "ultraconservative"? Of course there are some artists who push the envelope more than others, and an artist has to follow his or her vision, but for most (and ultimately for all) if art doesn't resonate with the people then it doesn't go anywhere.

And if that means Dickens has to cut his books into article-sized serials, or Warhol has to draw shoes to earn a buck or if John Lennon has to make sure his songs are short enough for airplay then that's how it is. For the most part artistic breakthroughs happen, but usually they happen whle artists are doing what they do to let people know about their art and sustain themselves financially by doing what they love.

Sorry, money is not a dirty word unless an artist would rather spend time doing something else to earn it rather than creating art. And for that matter, networking and schmoozing aren't dirty words either. The only artists who can afford to ignore that are those who are either so cloistered in their own work that they don't care, or those who don't have to because they have a patron or the modern equivalent. But most of the artists I know are quite happy to find a receptive and supportive audience.

Yes.  But the trope that art for money isn't art is also the sour-grapes tune of the failed wannabe who will never rise above amateur hour.