Less than what you think.
At what point does a director thinks that the movie he is filming is good enough?
At what point does a painter thinks that his painting is good enough and stop?
How about writer? photographer? songwriter?
What is 'good'?
Are there quantitative measures like KPIs in business or metrics to be fulfilled?
Or it is purely a generic feeling thingy?
Most importantly, must the creator like the creation himself like how a fan likes it?
The most controversial thing about art is the creation of art school itself.
Art by definition means 'the product of human creativity'. Creativity means something that
is groundbreaking and new. How can we teach someone to create something 'new'?
'Teaching' means replication and it means that we are passing something existing to the next person.
It is not something new, it is not creativity, and thus, it is not an art.
Perhaps the career as artist itself is also controversial.
An artist creates an art based on his own creativity, hence that piece of art enriches the public.
Or,
A person aspire to become an artist as a career goal, hence he creates an art based on what the public could possibly adore?
The former is pure creativity, the latter seems like a polluted pseudo artist. He is no different with a typical slickly business guy who set a certain amount of monetary goals as career goal.
Arts means plays,
Dazzling.
P.S.:
The answer to the art school paradox is that creativity (a way of thinking) can be instilled. In fact, it needs to be. You can't be inherently creative since you born (The 'Genius-Aptitude-school-of-thought' would argue otherwise). But at the same time, creativity can't be copied in verbatim like what industrialised art schools intended to do.
You learned that creativity as a way of thinking, a kind of artistic thought process. This is the first half. And that second half is about your talent.
"Creating great art is all about aptitude" is wrong. "Creating great art is all about effort" is wrong too.
Comments
Post a Comment