Quote Originally Posted by The Shadow One
Toga:

... Creating and keeping to yourself is the intellectual equivalent of pleasure gratified beneath the covers with a magazine and a flashlight.

The Shadow One



That's not my Playboy. It must belong to Leprechauns.
Your analogy to masturbation is crude, and used in this context, rude and not appreciated (by me anyway, as it was at my expense; I'm sure there are others here who will enjoy it). I offered you my opinion because you asked. Now, as I see how you react to those who offer an opinion with which you do not agree, I will refrain from doing so in the future. You are looking for sympathy, not an honest opinion. But I will comment on what you have said.

You misunderstand me. I am not saying that artists should keep their art to themselves. I'm saying that a True artist creates art, without being preoccupied with notions of success dependent upon their work being adored by others. Many artists were not recognized in their time by "critics" (or by the masses). This illustrates what I'm talking about. Their art was good, despite what the masses and critics of their time thought. My guess is, many of them did what they did without trying to adapt it to what the masses and critics wanted; to do so would have violated their sense of artistic integrity. Financial and popular success do not define artistic success. They made what they made, with their own inner standard as their guide.

When I say critics, I mean other educated and experienced practitioners of the artform which you practice, people whom you respect. I did NOT mean those that have been recognized by the industry (key word). Fans are good for judging the emotional impact of your art, but are not in a position to effectively judge your art from a technical standpoint. The path to financial and popular success means beckoning to your fans, but the path to artistic "success" is much more than that, imo.

"Does this mean the rest of the world is simply too dense or lacking in artistic instinct to recognize your talent?"

Well, " ... the rest of the world ... " is obviously an exaggeration you've used for effect (as is the term "your" in this context ...), but in a nutshell--YES; if everyone out there was able to recognize, understand, appreciate, and execute the subtle nuances of an artform, they would be actively exercising their creativity in the medium too. Yet, some get their feelings hurt when an artist--who has spent YEARS studying, practicing, and refining their talent, doesn't take them as seriously as they would like. Sorry, but I have little patience for people who behave like this. Petulant, ignorant wannabes, imo. Fortunately, most are not like this, and truly appreciate the talent and huge investment made True artists--and respect them for it.

This is such an ironic discussion for me, because we had one just like it in Senior Comp back in Uni. The majority of the class held a similar opinion that has been expressed here. I and two others disagreed. Interesting that we three were, hands down, the most accomplished and recognized performers. After the rather heated debate, the three of us stayed after class to talk with the professor. As we departed, he winked at us and said: "Just keep doing what you're doing. Hopefully the others will see eventually. But don't be surprised if any one of them makes more money at this than you do!" We all had a good laugh.

I guess the bottom line depends on how you define success as an artist. As so many have pointed out to me, I am my own worst critic (surely you can relate to this?), and I consider myself successful when I slave and slave over a composition until finally I listen to it (or in your medium, read it) and say to myself: "Aha! THAT'S what I was striving for!! Right on!!!"