Where does art come from?

[Corrupted Unicorn]

For me, art is how the earthly and the divine (the latter being God, multiple deities, the intangible forces of the Universe beyond our control, whichever way you prefer to envision it) interact, and we're the middleman, the antenna, the ones tasked with bringing those ideas down to Earth. By making them reality, art becomes not what is in our minds, but somewhere in-between, existing in both planes.

I like art that comes from joy. Maybe I'm some sort of Pollyanna, but in my head, I enjoy art because it reminds me there's good things in the world. That's not to disparage people who process their suffering through art and thus their art reflects their suffering. It doesn't mean I can't ever like or relate to art that reflects suffering, either.

My issue with art is not whether it comes from suffering, but whether it comes from honesty. Lately there's too many people and artworks who are afraid of being sincere and hide under layers and layers of irony, quips and cheap shots at humor to the point they self-sabotage their own message, sometimes their own purpose. That's not to say these tools have no value, but you have to know how to use them.

But after reading all this, about art being about vulnerability, I'm starting to wonder....can art be appreciated and enjoyed off of that alone? Can people look past imperfection if there's some clear emotional weight behind it? I'm asking because I've barely tried to be expressive or intimate with my art. I've just been practicing anatomy and feeling disappointed over and over again.

Yes. Yes. Some of my favourite art pieces come from children and beginners. What they lack in artistic skill, they make it up with honesty. With joy for the craft itself, no ulterior motif but to display what's on their heads. No perfectionism bringing them down.

[devils]

In a historical sense, art came to be to teach each other how to hunt, how to survive, what our history was like. I'd argue it's what truly separates us from other animals- some primates utilize primitive technology (chimpanzees have been recorded to make tools and even have gone as far as to create fire), but we're the only ones creating art in order to communicate something. To this day, we're still finding out about historical events from art pieces! So, to me what makes art truly unique/interesting is the fact that it's a recording... «I was here, I was alive and I created this».

I feel most replies are focused on what makes great art. But what is great art anyways? I've yet to figure that one out for myself, so reading the replies to this topic has been interesting.

Also!

I all around disagree. I think suffering is just easier to make art with so it appears that way. What people are thinking of here is evocative art. Art that makes you feel things needs to capture an emotion, and its easiest do that when you actually feel the emotion you're trying to capture. Negative emotions tend to occur more in most people's daily lives and usually happen in downtime where its possible to make art out of it. Positive emotions are absolutely possible to make great art out of, its just less common that they happen in a context where art can be created. Though keep in mind I also reject the notion that emotional investment in what you're creating is even necessary for creating "great art" anyway, but this was more important to express in my opinion.

I generally agree, but I wouldn't say negative emotions are more common than positive emotions necessarily. Most people who believe this and live that way tend to be depressed or otherwise mentally ill... I'm certainly no exception. Regardless, I'd argue the reason why so many pieces are inspired by negative emotions is because these emotions stay with us longer. Think of the last time you felt happy and the last time you felt sad. It's probably easier to remember the bad times, because they hurt!

That being said, emotional investment is absolutely not a requirement. The Mona Lisa was a commission, and figurative art is not only important to gain skills, it's also a record of how the world was, how the people who lived in it looked like.

[Aarix]

Art can certainly *involve* a lot of suffering. Suffering of the ego, of the body, of the wallet—there are so many compromises people make in order to serve their art. I often wonder why we artists put ourselves through all this, especially when everything’s already been done before. In an age where we can get a pretty picture of anything we like at the click of a button, what could possibly be the point of making more art (or writing, or music, or anything… the same glut exists)? Where does this compulsion come from, and what makes it so gripping? What the hell kind of exigence is this? And what the hell is exigence? “Exigence,” writes rhetorical scholar Lloyd Bitzer in an essay I’m not going to pretend I’ve read, “is an imperfection marked by urgency”. Couldn’t have said it better myself, Lloyd, which is why I didn’t. Let’s look at it like that: What are the imperfections compelling us to make art, and why are they so urgent? What problems exist for which art is the only reasonable solution?

I think it’s uncontroversial to say that many of us lead imperfect, inadequate social lives. The world’s human population has never been greater in number, yet loneliness is an epidemic among us. Unfortunately, we’re social organisms, whether we like it or not… I think only a rare kind of person can survive without human connection. For the rest of us, there’s a vital, painful appetite needing to be fed. I think the appeal of art, in no small part, stems from a kind of loneliness—even if one doesn’t lead an especially lonely life, there’s isolation inherent to one’s own qualia, one’s own unique experiences... as individual beings, there’s always something separating us from others. To allow oneself to be touched by art is to experience a form of human contact. I can’t speak for every artist, but I know loneliness is part of my impetus to create. For me, art serves as a means of connecting, however obliquely, with other people. When they see something I've created, they see a part of me. When I see something another artist had created, I see a part of them. All this can be done at one's own pace, on one's own terms. It's nice.

There’s also the matter of connecting with the world around oneself, the universe. As well as all the physical and social needs a human has, I think there are also such things as spiritual needs, and I think the practice of art can help fulfill them. I’ve seen very quotable quotes attributed to several famous artists which amount to “art is prayer”, (indeed,

For me, art is how the earthly and the divine (the latter being God, multiple deities, the intangible forces of the Universe beyond our control, whichever way you prefer to envision it) interact, and we're the middleman, the antenna, the ones tasked with bringing those ideas down to Earth.

) and while I don't exactly consider myself a religious person, the notion still resonates. There *is* a spiritual element to it, of slowing down and opening one’s senses to the world, and of obsessively honing one’s craft in order to better do justice to these amazing things all around us. There’s an almost unbearable amount of beauty in everything if you know how to see it, and learning to interact with that beauty is really, really good for the soul.

So, in my eyes, art comes from both social and spiritual hunger. A need to see and be seen, to communicate things too small and too profound for words. A need to express one’s humanity. Hunger can be a kind of suffering, but it’s also something which can sharpen one’s focus in pursuit of something. If art comes from suffering, then it’s the kind of suffering which makes us feel more alive.

…I won’t pretend that *all* art *always* has such a lofty raison d'etre. Sometimes you just wanna doodle a cool robot because you wanna doodle a cool robot. And there's an ego element too, of course--"I wanna make cool art because I want to be admired by other people" (hey, there's nothing wrong with having a bit of pride)... But I think the best art—the kind that gives you chills—invites us to experience the artist’s own way of thinking and seeing. That feeling of having a piece resonate with you is a very vulnerable one; like, for just a moment, in just a little way, feeling close to another part of the universe. Really awesome art can make you feel seen and known.... And it’s gooooood stuff. But whether the art in question is "great" or not, I think it still fulfills these needs in at least some kind of way.

[thecatscanvas]

So, in my eyes, art comes from both social and spiritual hunger. A need to see and be seen, to communicate things too small and too profound for words. A need to express one’s humanity. Hunger can be a kind of suffering, but it’s also something which can sharpen one’s focus in pursuit of something. If art comes from suffering, then it’s the kind of suffering which makes us feel more alive.

I was always into art since I could hold a crayon. But growing up I began to view art from a very capitalist perspective. You make a thing because people want it, it can get you the big numbers, money or clicks or likes or other engagement. Attention and superiority. I became so burnt out and depressed that I almost quit creating. I spent the last few years reteaching myself why I was drawn to art in the first place. I have to say I really agree with you, because what it came down to was communication. And although I now use art as a tool to express myself to others, primarily the communication was with myself. It allowed me to clarify and visualize how I felt and to process and extract meaning from my experiences.

[ArtGuts]

I suppose it is pretty subjective. I find a lot of my art comes from my emotional state. Even at my current age of ancient, I find that making "vent" art can be very therapeutic, although my definition of vent art has evolved over the years, too.