Or translated, what kind of an artist are you? He writes "An artist can be understood, specifically, as a person fixated at the visual stage of early development..." Essentially, artists have a partly unconscious NEED to make things. The need to make things is "manifested in various cultural contexts." He creates a fascinating list of various kinds of artists.
Is it worth figuring out where ones work comes from? What happens if your work crossed into more than one category? What about other categories he didn't list? Are these categories valid?
- "A shaman making a ritual object ('primative artist')
- A "naif " making an object for personal or communal use ('folk artist')
- A self expressionist ('romantic') using the medium to engender and project personal imagery
- A self-suppressionist ('classicist') using the medium to contrive formal compositions that mask personal impulse
- An academic traditionalist ('mannerist') using the imagery of precursors as self-evident and inviolable
- A decorator ('aesthete') using the elements of a style as ends to themselves
- And an absolute solipsist ('madman') working with visual imagery totally outside a social context."
2 comments:
I feel like there should be a cosmo magazine-esque test to find out what type of artist you are. It is interesting to think about... can I be a blend? With my facebook work is it possible that I am a self expressionist and suppressionist at the same time? No wonder I'm confused. ;) But I am trying to direct my subjects to make my pictures at the same time as revealing something about the subject.
The question is - what type of artist are YOU?
Hmm, Yeah, I think you can be a blend or even bounce around. I have this urge to try each one on and see which one fits. I like that last one... (crazy as bat shit?!)
Post a Comment