%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |  A journey of self-improvement - or not. |
|
Sup? I'm Char. You may know me from timeless classics such as
and
I blog for things like
[Embed For Use By Upgraded+] Believin' all the lies that they're tellin' ya Buyin' all the products that they're sellin' ya They say jump and ya say "how high?" Ya braindead, ya got a fuckin' bullet in ya head |
Artist: Sorority Noise Song: Art School Wannabe [Embed For Use By Upgraded+] Prompt via "30-Day Blogging Challenge ON HIATUS"  :They say art is subjective. What is art to you? For me, art is about the artist, not about the viewer. Which would explain why so many of my poems leave people going, “huh?”  Even though I’m sharing my writing here with people, I write for myself and only myself. The best I can hope for is that if you read a poem of mine, you feel 10% of what I was feeling when I wrote it. I call that successful. This is such an open prompt, I’ll ramble if I don’t structure it a little, so let’s try that.Art vs Not Art So, there’s two different perspectives here. The artist’s and the spectator’s. For the artist, art is probably something that allows them to express something whether it’s a story, a mood, a feeling, an idea, or something else entirely. When creating art, I think an artist is releasing something. They’re trapping it on paper or canvas or whatever. For the spectator, it’s pretty much the exact opposite. It’s a story, mood, feeling, or idea that they’re receiving through art. I think spectators are able to relate their own experiences and perspective to their chosen art. They choose to receive what they receive because they have a “hey, me too” moment when viewing the work. I’m sure there’s a much more technical definition. Sure, you could talk about the collection of skills and tools required to make the art. You could talk about the process from conception to finished product. But at the end of the day, I really think it’s about release (for artist) and evocation (for spectator). Good vs Bad Art The more difficult thing to define is whether a piece of art is good, bad, or in between. In fact, I think it’s fairly impossible. There are a lot of forms of art and within those forms there are a lot of artists who are generally accepted as the “greatest” of the genre. But even that doesn’t really tell us much about good vs bad art. Most of the time, that actually just tells us popular vs. not. I’ve met people who absolutely loathe certain movies, books, and musicians who are often thought of as the best of all time. Whether they’re just being adversarial isn’t really relevant. The point is that even among the most commonly accepted “good” artists, there are still people who are wholly unimpressed with the artwork. And at the same time, there are many underground or unknown artists whose fans think they’re way underrated. There are a lot of technically artists who are honestly just drab as fuck. Like, increasingly boring to read or view in any capacity. And while I can acknowledge and appreciate that their technical skill is great, they lack the innate ability to create long-lasting impact. If we’re going by the definition above, I guess good art would be something that releases something for the artist and that release evokes something for the spectator. I think that’s the best summary I can give for this one.  Maybe I'm my own greatest fear maybe I'm just scared to admit that I might not be as dark as I think |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
