the quality of the creation has noting to do with the quality of the creator?
I’d love to understand this. Enlighten me.
: )
What about the artist then the art? Take care of the artist you get art like golden eggs. OR not.
Something like that.
That was obtuse of me. Simply, it makes no sense to call a work inferior just because the artist is inferior as a person. Ricard Wagner was certainly odious, but his work is so powerfully brilliant that it can spur your own creativity.
I see what you mean. It means a lot that you clarified this for me. I will ceartainly take this understanding into concideration.
Do you think it’s fair to assume even with a number of odious creators that when you take care of your artists art follows, and that the person comes first. Like it’s the players then the game. Put players first. Put artists first. Before the art. Before the game. For best un-insane results. Do you think?
The person is the source of the art, and creative people develop characteristics that make them unpleasant and worse. Those can be mediated to some extent by therapy or in extreme cases commitment, but this is the province of psychologists and not those who appreciate and learn from the art.
I have been wondering about this like my city Austin Texas being hollowed of its soul since artists that make this place so wonderful to live in in the first place can no longer afford to live here. Maybe its an artist’s way to move on and make another place wonderful. What do you suppose?
waywardspirit 
The art, not the artist. The quality of the creation has nothing to do with the quality of the creator.
LikeLike
the quality of the creation has noting to do with the quality of the creator?
I’d love to understand this. Enlighten me.
: )
What about the artist then the art? Take care of the artist you get art like golden eggs. OR not.
Something like that.
LikeLike
That was obtuse of me. Simply, it makes no sense to call a work inferior just because the artist is inferior as a person. Ricard Wagner was certainly odious, but his work is so powerfully brilliant that it can spur your own creativity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see what you mean. It means a lot that you clarified this for me. I will ceartainly take this understanding into concideration.
Do you think it’s fair to assume even with a number of odious creators that when you take care of your artists art follows, and that the person comes first. Like it’s the players then the game. Put players first. Put artists first. Before the art. Before the game. For best un-insane results. Do you think?
LikeLike
The person is the source of the art, and creative people develop characteristics that make them unpleasant and worse. Those can be mediated to some extent by therapy or in extreme cases commitment, but this is the province of psychologists and not those who appreciate and learn from the art.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘What do you suppose is the province of those who learn from the art or are the community of an artist in need, any need?
LikeLike
I have been wondering about this like my city Austin Texas being hollowed of its soul since artists that make this place so wonderful to live in in the first place can no longer afford to live here. Maybe its an artist’s way to move on and make another place wonderful. What do you suppose?
LikeLike