Wiardgroup

> > Again I disagree.  Art is a form of communication.
>  What good 
> would 
> > Tolstoy have been if his novels were written only for
> himself?  
> Of 
> > what use would Mozart have been if he had locked
> himself in a 
> closet 
> > and composed music for his ears only?  Creating music
> for 
> oneself is 
> > enjoyable, but it is tantamount to aesthetic
> masturbation.  It 
> may 
> > good, but will never bear any offspring.

i don't think i agree with the sentiment here.
i mean, it seems like it sort of comes from the point of
view that if you have a special talent/gift/whatever, that
you're obligated to share it with others. 
i think that's a completely personal decision that any
artist has to make individually and not a given. 

for many artists (especially those comfortable with
referring to themselves as such to whomever cares to
listen) the decision is an easy one and probably not even
thought of as being an option. i think yours is the more
common belief...if you make art in any form you must share
it. however, i'd argue that, more often than not, it's
borne out of ego rather than altruism.

perhaps i sound very selfish, but i think it's selfish to
believe that artists owe the world their art and that it's
fruitless if it isn't handed over.

art doesn't become valid when a person besides the artist
experiences it...rather, by the time people experience the
art, i would say that it's importance/value to the artist
has long since past and he/she is looking forward to the
next idea/work. to me, art starts with an idea and ends
when the idea is executed to the satisfaction (well, maybe
that's not quite the best word) of the artist.
after the artist has completed the work, a new journey
begins with a new work...the completed works are more like
mile markers for the jouney or headstones in homage to the
person the artist was when the work was done...

after the work is complete, if the artist chooses to share
it with others, it no longer belongs to them. it belongs to
whomever experiences it.
the same as the words that leave your mouth when you speak
them to another person. no matter what you meant or why you
said them, the moment they leave your lips it's no longer
up to you how they are percieved by their recipient...ever
play "telephone"? ever say something and have it taken the
wrong way?

if the artist was trying to communicate something, with
their work, some people will understand and others will
take it the wrong way. then critics and historians get
involved and the game of telephone begins...

regardless, if the artist chooses to destroy or not to
share their work, that's their creation and their
prerogative. and it's no shame, because art is about your
personal expression...learning more about yourself and/or
channeling things out of yourself that you have no other
way of getting out and/or making things for no other reason
than they're aesthetically pleasing to you and/or...

in closing, art doesn't have to be about communication...it
can be about destruction, creation, the sunset, the wind,
trash...things that don't need to be communicated to be
felt or meaningful and don't even need to be felt or
meaningful... 

and besides what the fuck do you have against masturbation
anyway!? :)

luv
rev.jon