SCI-ART LAB

Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication

Everywhere I see there is competition, competition, competition and more competition in the art world. People are giving importance to the quantity of art work an artist produces and number of art shows he or she organizes. Art galleries and auction houses see the number of art shows in the CV of an artist to select his work. There is pressure on artists to create more.
Artists are running out of ideas and are carbon-copying*, copying or producing substandard work to meet this criteria of "large number of shows". "Creativity" is suffering as a result. If creating capability of an artist suffers, it is in a way the "death of a person as an artist".

Tell me, can any artist produce hundreds and sometimes even thousands of pieces of art work in his life time without compromising on quality? Can his brain think and produce something new, high quality work at least once in a week in his long career? No, I don't think so. Practically speaking this is not possible**. A masterpiece can be produced very rarely - not every week. If art works can be produced everyday they will only be substandard stuff. They can't stand the test of time.

In the earlier times masterpieces were created by all the artists as there was no pressure on them. Artists had freedom and they created works only when they were ready for them. Leonardo da Vinci created very few works. Yet all of them were master pieces. So did several other masters. Because there were no market forces then that made them run the rat races.

Everybody in India knows that a well known artist first took money to create a hundred pieces of art work and then created them. It was the money and the market that made the artist to create work and not the "inspiration" or "creativity" that was responsible for his work. It is anybody's guess what the quality of the work in such cases would be. It doesn't matter even if he was a senior -most artist here with years of creative experience. Can a best artist create hundred pieces of good quality work in a limited time frame? I don't think he can.

Now the question is how much substandard stuff can the world tolerate and accumulate? Artists are depending on good marketing strategies and sometimes their names acquired earlier instead of good art work to move up and go to the top. Are all these artists producing the best work? Definitely not. Then why is the world consuming it?
Because the marketing mavericks are recommending it. This artificial glory that is being thrust on some artists and their works is taking them to the summit.

If the world is prepared to lap up this type of substandard stuff, well who am I to say no?
Go ahead world and join the party. But please excuse me because I am made of different stuff.

*Please read my earlier article here: http://artlab.ning.com/group/Criticisms/forum/topics/are-we-running...
**I am not talking about theoritical capabilities of brain. Yes, theoritically, human brain has unlimited capabilities. But if you take practical capabilities into consideration there are several parameters that restrict the creating capabilities of the brain. Ordinary human beings can use only a small percentage of capabilities of their brains at any given point of time. They cannot tap into unlimited power of their brains without a superhuman training.

Views: 37

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Obviously you are a fan of Picasso, Ninon. Naturally you look at the work of Picasso through the eyes of a fan. But I don't think all his work is good. Yes, he created lots of work. Yes, marketing mavericks say all that he created is fabulous. But I - for that matter several people - don't agree
with this. There are several critics of Picasso too. It is all about individual perception. What you might consider as the work of a genius could be an ordinary work for others. Brain's performances will be limited by the perceptions, experiences, opinions, biased thinking etc. Just want to give your own example you like Picasso so you think he created unlimited work, his mind is capable of creating unlimited work & all that he created is the work of a genius. You fail to think otherwise!
I am not a fan of Picasso so I can judge his work only from unbiased view point
Here are the links to the criticisms of his work:
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/P/picasso.html
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1734

Ninon CZ said:
You said and here are my answers:
1.) "Can any artist produce hundreds and sometimes even thousands of pieces of art work in his life time without compromising on quality?" ....Of Course they can! Picasso among others. Some create a little and some create a lot. Either way, a little or a lot, we cannot judge the quality or creativity or skill because of one or the other. 2.) "Can his brain think and produce something new, high quality work at least once in a week in his long career?" ....Yes, definately. Picasso among others created vast amounts of amazing work. Picasso could turn on....and paint layers and layers and layers of amazing stuff. I think it is very important in art to not create fixed determiners about what the brain or a creative person is capable of.
3.) "There is a limit to the creating capabilities of the brain." ...Of course not! Only if you think so. It is a known fact that we only use 10% of our brain. I mean the greatest genius has only used about 10%. There is a LOT unused that could be used and no one knows how much a person could tap into. Creativity is absolutely limitless and only limited by the concepts of the one creating. However, life can limit our inspiration and herein can lay the problem. Purpose is also an important factor and the purpose you are creating for can create a problem in your work.

4.) "Can a best artist create hundred pieces of good quality work in a limited time frame? As a Biologist I can tell the world the human brain has no such capability." I don't think that the time or quantity is a factor, however, Picasso did this for sure. I am not one to limit the "capabilities" of the brain. The brain is one of the great unknown frontiers and usually when we think we have it figured out, something pops up and surprises us! I don't think we can say what the brain can do or not because we really don't know yet.

However, creating lots of work does not mean it is good...and creating a little bit of work doesn't mean it is good. Just because someone wants someone to create a lot of art for money doesn't mean it is great or not great. Quantity is not quality and personal preference also doesn't necessarily agree with everyone.

As I have said from the beginning, there are very few excellent artists. There are few masters or genius's. There is a lot of "junk" no doubt, but those who hit that magical inspiration spot can do whatever it is they wish and produce limitless amazing originality.
He is considered by some critics as lazy, sexist, communist & his works reflect all these! ( These are not my words)

Here are more:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20892
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/P/picasso_late.html

Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa said:
Obviously you are a fan of Picasso, Ninon. Naturally you look at the work of Picasso through the eyes of a fan. But I don't think all his work is good. Yes, he created lots of work. Yes, marketing mavericks say all that he created is fabulous. But I - for that matter several people - don't agree
with this. There are several critics of Picasso too. It is all about individual perception. What you might consider as the work of a genius could be an ordinary work for others. Brain's performances will be limited by the perceptions, experiences, opinions, biased thinking etc. Just want to give your own example you like Picasso so you think he created unlimited work, his mind is capable of creating unlimited work & all that he created is the work of a genius. You fail to think otherwise! I am not a fan of Picasso so I can judge his work only from unbiased view point Here are the links to the criticisms of his work: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/P/picasso.html
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1734

Ninon CZ said:
You said and here are my answers:
1.) "Can any artist produce hundreds and sometimes even thousands of pieces of art work in his life time without compromising on quality?" ....Of Course they can! Picasso among others. Some create a little and some create a lot. Either way, a little or a lot, we cannot judge the quality or creativity or skill because of one or the other. 2.) "Can his brain think and produce something new, high quality work at least once in a week in his long career?" ....Yes, definately. Picasso among others created vast amounts of amazing work. Picasso could turn on....and paint layers and layers and layers of amazing stuff. I think it is very important in art to not create fixed determiners about what the brain or a creative person is capable of. 3.) "There is a limit to the creating capabilities of the brain." ...Of course not! Only if you think so. It is a known fact that we only use 10% of our brain. I mean the greatest genius has only used about 10%. There is a LOT unused that could be used and no one knows how much a person could tap into. Creativity is absolutely limitless and only limited by the concepts of the one creating. However, life can limit our inspiration and herein can lay the problem. Purpose is also an important factor and the purpose you are creating for can create a problem in your work. 4.) "Can a best artist create hundred pieces of good quality work in a limited time frame? As a Biologist I can tell the world the human brain has no such capability." I don't think that the time or quantity is a factor, however, Picasso did this for sure. I am not one to limit the "capabilities" of the brain. The brain is one of the great unknown frontiers and usually when we think we have it figured out, something pops up and surprises us! I don't think we can say what the brain can do or not because we really don't know yet.

However, creating lots of work does not mean it is good...and creating a little bit of work doesn't mean it is good. Just because someone wants someone to create a lot of art for money doesn't mean it is great or not great. Quantity is not quality and personal preference also doesn't necessarily agree with everyone.

As I have said from the beginning, there are very few excellent artists. There are few masters or genius's. There is a lot of "junk" no doubt, but those who hit that magical inspiration spot can do whatever it is they wish and produce limitless amazing originality.
You yourself are contradicting your words, Ninon.
Just because some fans say Picasso is a genius that has unlimited creating capabilities, It might not become a fact. Ninon, you are obsessed with Picasso! He created his work in a number of years.

Ninon CZ said:
You said and here are my answers:
1.) "Can any artist produce hundreds and sometimes even thousands of pieces of art work in his life time without compromising on quality?" ....Of Course they can! Picasso among others. Some create a little and some create a lot. Either way, a little or a lot, we cannot judge the quality or creativity or skill because of one or the other. 2.) "Can his brain think and produce something new, high quality work at least once in a week in his long career?" ....Yes, definately. Picasso among others created vast amounts of amazing work. Picasso could turn on....and paint layers and layers and layers of amazing stuff. I think it is very important in art to not create fixed determiners about what the brain or a creative person is capable of. 3.) "There is a limit to the creating capabilities of the brain." ...Of course not! Only if you think so. It is a known fact that we only use 10% of our brain. I mean the greatest genius has only used about 10%. There is a LOT unused that could be used and no one knows how much a person could tap into. Creativity is absolutely limitless and only limited by the concepts of the one creating. However, life can limit our inspiration and herein can lay the problem. Purpose is also an important factor and the purpose you are creating for can create a problem in your work.

4.) "Can a best artist create hundred pieces of good quality work in a limited time frame? As a Biologist I can tell the world the human brain has no such capability." I don't think that the time or quantity is a factor, however, Picasso did this for sure. I am not one to limit the "capabilities" of the brain. The brain is one of the great unknown frontiers and usually when we think we have it figured out, something pops up and surprises us! I don't think we can say what the brain can do or not because we really don't know yet.

However, creating lots of work does not mean it is good...and creating a little bit of work doesn't mean it is good. Just because someone wants someone to create a lot of art for money doesn't mean it is great or not great. Quantity is not quality and personal preference also doesn't necessarily agree with everyone.

As I have said from the beginning, there are very few excellent artists. There are few masters or genius's. There is a lot of "junk" no doubt, but those who hit that magical inspiration spot can do whatever it is they wish and produce limitless amazing originality.
I am not talking about theoritical capabilities of brain, Ninon. Yes, theoritically, brain has unlimited capabilities. But if you take practical capabilities into consideration there are several parameters that restrict the creating capabilities of brain. Ordinary human beings can use only a small percentage of capabilities of our brains at any given point of time. They cannot tap into unlimited power of their brains without superhuman training. You are talking about theory & I am talking about Practical things.
rtlab.ning.com/forum/topics/how-much-substandard-stuff-can#2816864Comment30223">
You said and here are my answers:
1.) "Can any artist produce hundreds and sometimes even thousands of pieces of art work in his life time without compromising on quality?" ....Of Course they can! Picasso among others. Some create a little and some create a lot. Either way, a little or a lot, we cannot judge the quality or creativity or skill because of one or the other.
2.) "Can his brain think and produce something new, high quality work at least once in a week in his long career?" ....Yes, definately. Picasso among others created vast amounts of amazing work. Picasso could turn on....and paint layers and layers and layers of amazing stuff. I think it is very important in art to not create fixed determiners about what the brain or a creative person is capable of.

3.) "There is a limit to the creating capabilities of the brain." ...Of course not! Only if you think so. It is a known fact that we only use 10% of our brain. I mean the greatest genius has only used about 10%. There is a LOT unused that could be used and no one knows how much a person could tap into. Creativity is absolutely limitless and only limited by the concepts of the one creating. However, life can limit our inspiration and herein can lay the problem. Purpose is also an important factor and the purpose you are creating for can create a problem in your work.

4.) "Can a best artist create hundred pieces of good quality work in a limited time frame? As a Biologist I can tell the world the human brain has no such capability." I don't think that the time or quantity is a factor, however, Picasso did this for sure. I am not one to limit the "capabilities" of the brain. The brain is one of the great unknown frontiers and usually when we think we have it figured out, something pops up and surprises us! I don't think we can say what the brain can do or not because we really don't know yet.

However, creating lots of work does not mean it is good...and creating a little bit of work doesn't mean it is good. Just because someone wants someone to create a lot of art for money doesn't mean it is great or not great. Quantity is not quality and personal preference also doesn't necessarily agree with everyone.

As I have said from the beginning, there are very few excellent artists. There are few masters or genius's. There is a lot of "junk" no doubt, but those who hit that magical inspiration spot can do whatever it is they wish and produce limitless amazing originality.
Dr.Krishna congrats to a scientific mind,you are right now the only person speaking the true language of creation.I am amazed!Yes it is impossible for any artist to churn out masterpieces simultaneously.Even in Da vinci's case,The "Mona Lisa"takes precedence over other works by the same artist. Even biologically in a family,one child may become a winner and a genius,the rest are also ran.The strange thing I find (mind you this is my feeling,not meant to be the






gospel) is that artists are into a kind of lobby,enjoying each others umbrella protection.

This attitude of ego, so called seniority and groupism is gradually ringing the death knell of genuinely creative art and artists. I beleive that the artists battlefield is on the gallery wall.Open to debate,criticism,defeat or appreciation,yet we find senior artists afraid to compete with emerging ones. Most artists are into hyping each other up,and this had lead to most of the art being substandard.Art selling on the reputation of an artist is fine,but it should and must have creative expression.This Artist,Gallery,Collector and Media nexus needs to do a rethink,to enable art reach it's true zenith. All the best....PRINCE
No, Ninon, I never let personal life of a person effect my judgement of the creating capabilities of a person. That is a wrong assumption.
No, I don't hate Picasso. I don't hate anybody for that matter. I try to understand what makes a person what he is. Because personal lives also effects artist's creativity. I read somewhere that Picasso hated his wife but loved his mistress & painted her pictures. Yes, in this case his personal life effected his creativity! I don't consider Picasso as a good artist! He is just average. Fans attribute several things to their idols. They treat him as demi -gods & super heroes. This effects their judgement. For eg., several critics & fans said Picasso's Cubism is based on science. Picasso himself rubbished this & said there was no scientific base to his work! So all that fans & critics attribute to their heroes need not be correct!
Recently Saatchi gallery & Times conducted a poll to find out who the top ten best artists in the world. They selected a few artists & asked members of Saatchi's to vote. I was also invited to vote. When I saw the list, I found only artists belonging to the West. There wasn't a single artist from India & the East! Do they mean there are no great artists here? I refused to vote & sent a strongly worded message to the people who conducted this poll.
Just because the world says some are the best in the world, they need not be so. Similarly when I see the best -list I always find only a few names. I don't support these biased arguments & assumptions. Standards differ from place to place & again depend on several things. A few days back I sent a dictionary of words compiled by me to BBC. Yes, the media in some parts of the world has a different set of meanings & understanding of the World! It dictates to the world what the "best" is. It thrusts its opinion on the world & says it is the opinion of the world & tries to sway people. Sorry, I have my own mind. I don't get carried away by these.

Challenging me, Ninon? Is this a battle ground or what? Are we fighting duels here? This is just a discussion forum. Anyway I will answer your challenging Qs later because I will have to do several things now.
Krishna



Ninon CZ said:
I am starting to get the idea that you don't like Picasso? Lol! As for talent and success, if you owned ONE picture of Picasso you would never ever have to work again. I don’t know anyone who would turn down having a real Picasso hanging on their wall. I would say that until my work reached that point I won’t criticize a person and find how I might learn from their work and example.

It is also advisable to not judge an artist by their character or moral and social choices. To judge an artist's quality of work or genius by their political, social or religious views or background on any level is an error in judgment. This is a very narrow way of thinking. Under those criteria few artists would have made it anytime in history. For example: I don’t think anyone who is a musician would have the nerve to say, “Michael Jackson” was not an exceptional artist, however, most would agree that his lifestyle choices were questionable. Personally, I prefer other music, but my preference does not diminish the fact that he was THE most exceptional musical artist of our time on all levels. Exceptional artists, by nature, tend to be social outcasts and a little crazy. They are constantly pushing the boundaries of the “known” and this is what makes their work so innovative.

I am not "obsessed" with Picasso, but created a LOT of work and a lot of GOOD work no matter how you look at it. This is a fact that 'most' of the art world agrees with. He created some work that no one could relate to, but that doesn’t mean it was not good or valid. I also originally thought Picasso was lousy and a quack until I saw his work in person. When I saw his work in person it knocked my socks off and it changed my entire concept and how I saw art. I use him as an example because I went from one extreme of thinking to understanding and seeing in a way I never saw before. I wasn’t a fan before I saw his work and since I have no one else to compare to in skill in modern art then I guess I could be called a “fan.” I am not “blinded” by being a fan, but there really is no one else I can compare to that most people recognize the name of.

Here are some other prolific artists that you may or may not like. If you don't like these I'll try to find some more. I think these are also examples, like Picasso, of genius and prolific works in their lifetimes:

Jackson Pollock
Marc Chagall
Paul Cézanne
Georges Mathieu

This is my challenge to you as a scientist: What is creativity?
What is the biological base of creativity? How do you judge a brain
from a physiological base? Can you give a person a blood test or a
genetic test that determines their intelligence or creativity or the limits of either?

My conclusion is this: We are too important as a creative being to be categorized with limitations. All scientific evidence today shows we are capable of far more than we have yet achieved. If there are known limits, then those limits may be overcome by evolution.


Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa said:
You yourself are contradicting your words, Ninon.
Just because some fans say Picasso is a genius that has unlimited creating capabilities, It might not become a fact. Ninon, you are obsessed with Picasso! He created his work in a number of years.

Ninon CZ said:
You said and here are my answers:
1.) "Can any artist produce hundreds and sometimes even thousands of pieces of art work in his life time without compromising on quality?" ....Of Course they can! Picasso among others. Some create a little and some create a lot. Either way, a little or a lot, we cannot judge the quality or creativity or skill because of one or the other. 2.) "Can his brain think and produce something new, high quality work at least once in a week in his long career?" ....Yes, definately. Picasso among others created vast amounts of amazing work. Picasso could turn on....and paint layers and layers and layers of amazing stuff. I think it is very important in art to not create fixed determiners about what the brain or a creative person is capable of. 3.) "There is a limit to the creating capabilities of the brain." ...Of course not! Only if you think so. It is a known fact that we only use 10% of our brain. I mean the greatest genius has only used about 10%. There is a LOT unused that could be used and no one knows how much a person could tap into. Creativity is absolutely limitless and only limited by the concepts of the one creating. However, life can limit our inspiration and herein can lay the problem. Purpose is also an important factor and the purpose you are creating for can create a problem in your work.

4.) "Can a best artist create hundred pieces of good quality work in a limited time frame? As a Biologist I can tell the world the human brain has no such capability." I don't think that the time or quantity is a factor, however, Picasso did this for sure. I am not one to limit the "capabilities" of the brain. The brain is one of the great unknown frontiers and usually when we think we have it figured out, something pops up and surprises us! I don't think we can say what the brain can do or not because we really don't know yet.

However, creating lots of work does not mean it is good...and creating a little bit of work doesn't mean it is good. Just because someone wants someone to create a lot of art for money doesn't mean it is great or not great. Quantity is not quality and personal preference also doesn't necessarily agree with everyone.

As I have said from the beginning, there are very few excellent artists. There are few masters or genius's. There is a lot of "junk" no doubt, but those who hit that magical inspiration spot can do whatever it is they wish and produce limitless amazing originality.
Yes, very true!
Krishna
Marcelino Ferreiro Paz said:
Let`s put it other way. Let`s consider , for instance, that art is not made by ordinary men. Let`s think that the 10%
you are talking about is much more than enough for them.Give me any information about any great ordinary creator whose work remained through time. Picasso drew "Les Mademoiselles d`Avignon"within few minutes. But took him many years to get there. Few people know that work, which I find awfull, if I didn`t know that it was the spark to make "Guernica", that everybody knows, and plenty consider a"very brigth moment in the artist`s inner light, drums and violins". The simplest design might be just the beginning of something really spetial . It`s need to distinguish between sorts of inspiration, results an in betweens....PAZ
Thank you. Yes, you are right. Recently I read that one senior artist here copied his work from a photo of another artist. When the media highlighted this all his artist friends supported him & said this is common & an accepted criteria in the art world! So shocking!
Krishna

Prince Freakasso said:
Dr.Krishna congrats to a scientific mind,you are right now the only person speaking the true language of creation.I am amazed!Yes it is impossible for any artist to churn out masterpieces simultaneously.Even in Da vinci's case,The "Mona Lisa"takes precedence over other works by the same artist. Even biologically in a family,one child may become a winner and a genius,the rest are also ran.The strange thing I find (mind you this is my feeling,not meant to be the






gospel) is that artists are into a kind of lobby,enjoying each others umbrella protection.

This attitude of ego, so called seniority and groupism is gradually ringing the death knell of genuinely creative art and artists. I beleive that the artists battlefield is on the gallery wall.Open to debate,criticism,defeat or appreciation,yet we find senior artists afraid to compete with emerging ones. Most artists are into hyping each other up,and this had lead to most of the art being substandard.Art selling on the reputation of an artist is fine,but it should and must have creative expression.This Artist,Gallery,Collector and Media nexus needs to do a rethink,to enable art reach it's true zenith. All the best....PRINCE
Science & art are not opposite , Ninon. Art Lab is created to explore the relationship between art & science. There are discussions on this network that try to show this relationship. These days almost all the established artists are depending on hype. Marketing people are creating these artificial summits. This is a fact. If you choose not to see it, we can't say anything about it! Yes, artists need buyers to survive. Buyers can buy anything they want. But please don't let them try to tell the world what they are buying is the best.
Krishna

Ninon CZ said:
The "science is the true language of creation?" Was this a joke or are you serious? Science is the exact opposite of art. You can express your art in scientific terms if you choose to, but it is not THE only way.

"Impossible" for who? This is not a proven fact and I have given quite a few examples of prolific artists.

Artists cannot survive on other artists "hype" nor does this limit or expand their work. If everyone is "selling" and no one is "buying" all art would die. This is a bogus statement from all angles.

Prince Freakasso said:
Dr.Krishna congrats to a scientific mind,you are right now the only person speaking the true language of creation.I am amazed!Yes it is impossible for any artist to churn out masterpieces simultaneously.Even in Da vinci's case,The "Mona Lisa"takes precedence over other works by the same artist. Even biologically in a family,one child may become a winner and a genius,the rest are also ran.The strange thing I find (mind you this is my feeling,not meant to be the






gospel) is that artists are into a kind of lobby,enjoying each others umbrella protection.

This attitude of ego, so called seniority and groupism is gradually ringing the death knell of genuinely creative art and artists. I beleive that the artists battlefield is on the gallery wall.Open to debate,criticism,defeat or appreciation,yet we find senior artists afraid to compete with emerging ones. Most artists are into hyping each other up,and this had lead to most of the art being substandard.Art selling on the reputation of an artist is fine,but it should and must have creative expression.This Artist,Gallery,Collector and Media nexus needs to do a rethink,to enable art reach it's true zenith. All the best....PRINCE
My article " A masterpiece in my opinion" will be published in a news paper magazine soon. I cannot give details until it is published. As soon as it is published , I will post it here. When you read it you will know what a master piece or good work in my opinion is.
That article also describes who a good artist is.

Ninon CZ said:
In your opinion, who is a "good" or admirable artist? Who do you admire and look-up to in the art world? Also, I mentioned some other artists that I esteem as highly and as genius as Picasso. Are any of these acceptable in your opinion?
Jackson Pollock Marc Chagall
Paul Cézanne
Georges Mathieu

By my liking Western Artists it does not mean that I don't like Indian or other artists. I have studied a lot of art lately by others, but I simply have no exposure to famous, historical Indian artists. I am not even sure what the history of Indian art is and this might be a good subject for another blog.
Yes, Picasso hated his first wife, therefore he didn't paint her pics. On the other hand he painted the pics of his mistress because he loved her. Didn't that effect the artist & his work in someway?
But I don't allow such things to effect my judgement. If his painting of his mistress is good, I will say it is good. These two are different things.

Ninon CZ said:
Hi ~
I never used the word "hate." Hate is a strong word. You said that you don't let your personal feeling affect your opinion and then said that Picasso hated his wife and also said that it affective his creativity. When looking at his art I have never seen any expression of his personal life. I am not sure what his feeling towards his wife has to do with anything. Most artists in history have had "muses" and been rather socially questionable in many of their choices involving both men and women. Again, it hasn't got much to do with the actual talent.

I asked you some questions based on your original discussion and on some statements you have made. You don't seem to like the word "challenge" which does not mean some sort of a "fight" in my way of communicating. Probably a better word is, "discourse."

As a scientist for the purpose of this particular discourse:
What is creativity?
What is the biological base of creativity?
How do you judge a brain
from a physiological base?
Can you give a person a blood test or a genetic test that determines their intelligence or creativity or the limits of either?


Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa said:
No, Ninon, I never let personal life of a person effect my judgement of the creating capabilities of a person. That is a wrong assumption.
No, I don't hate Picasso. I don't hate anybody for that matter. I try to understand what makes a person what he is. Because personal lives also effects artist's creativity. I read somewhere that Picasso hated his wife but loved his mistress & painted her pictures. Yes, in this case his personal life effected his creativity! I don't consider Picasso as a good artist! He is just average. Fans attribute several things to their idols. They treat him as demi -gods & super heroes. This effects their judgement. For eg., several critics & fans said Picasso's Cubism is based on science. Picasso himself rubbished this & said there was no scientific base to his work! So all that fans & critics attribute to their heroes need not be correct!
Recently Saatchi gallery & Times conducted a poll to find out who the top ten best artists in the world. They selected a few artists & asked members of Saatchi's to vote. I was also invited to vote. When I saw the list, I found only artists belonging to the West. There wasn't a single artist from India & the East! Do they mean there are no great artists here? I refused to vote & sent a strongly worded message to the people who conducted this poll.
Just because the world says some are the best in the world, they need not be so. Similarly when I see the best -list I always find only a few names. I don't support these biased arguments & assumptions. Standards differ from place to place & again depend on several things. A few days back I sent a dictionary of words compiled by me to BBC. Yes, the media in some parts of the world has a different set of meanings & understanding of the World! It dictates to the world what the "best" is. It thrusts its opinion on the world & says it is the opinion of the world & tries to sway people. Sorry, I have my own mind. I don't get carried away by these.

Challenging me, Ninon? Is this a battle ground or what? Are we fighting duels here? This is just a discussion forum. Anyway I will answer your challenging Qs later because I will have to do several things now.
Krishna



Ninon CZ said:
I am starting to get the idea that you don't like Picasso? Lol! As for talent and success, if you owned ONE picture of Picasso you would never ever have to work again. I don’t know anyone who would turn down having a real Picasso hanging on their wall. I would say that until my work reached that point I won’t criticize a person and find how I might learn from their work and example.

It is also advisable to not judge an artist by their character or moral and social choices. To judge an artist's quality of work or genius by their political, social or religious views or background on any level is an error in judgment. This is a very narrow way of thinking. Under those criteria few artists would have made it anytime in history. For example: I don’t think anyone who is a musician would have the nerve to say, “Michael Jackson” was not an exceptional artist, however, most would agree that his lifestyle choices were questionable. Personally, I prefer other music, but my preference does not diminish the fact that he was THE most exceptional musical artist of our time on all levels. Exceptional artists, by nature, tend to be social outcasts and a little crazy. They are constantly pushing the boundaries of the “known” and this is what makes their work so innovative.

I am not "obsessed" with Picasso, but created a LOT of work and a lot of GOOD work no matter how you look at it. This is a fact that 'most' of the art world agrees with. He created some work that no one could relate to, but that doesn’t mean it was not good or valid. I also originally thought Picasso was lousy and a quack until I saw his work in person. When I saw his work in person it knocked my socks off and it changed my entire concept and how I saw art. I use him as an example because I went from one extreme of thinking to understanding and seeing in a way I never saw before. I wasn’t a fan before I saw his work and since I have no one else to compare to in skill in modern art then I guess I could be called a “fan.” I am not “blinded” by being a fan, but there really is no one else I can compare to that most people recognize the name of.

Here are some other prolific artists that you may or may not like. If you don't like these I'll try to find some more. I think these are also examples, like Picasso, of genius and prolific works in their lifetimes:

Jackson Pollock
Marc Chagall
Paul Cézanne
Georges Mathieu

This is my challenge to you as a scientist: What is creativity?
What is the biological base of creativity? How do you judge a brain
from a physiological base? Can you give a person a blood test or a
genetic test that determines their intelligence or creativity or the limits of either?

My conclusion is this: We are too important as a creative being to be categorized with limitations. All scientific evidence today shows we are capable of far more than we have yet achieved. If there are known limits, then those limits may be overcome by evolution.


Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa said:
You yourself are contradicting your words, Ninon.
Just because some fans say Picasso is a genius that has unlimited creating capabilities, It might not become a fact. Ninon, you are obsessed with Picasso! He created his work in a number of years.

Ninon CZ said:
You said and here are my answers:
1.) "Can any artist produce hundreds and sometimes even thousands of pieces of art work in his life time without compromising on quality?" ....Of Course they can! Picasso among others. Some create a little and some create a lot. Either way, a little or a lot, we cannot judge the quality or creativity or skill because of one or the other. 2.) "Can his brain think and produce something new, high quality work at least once in a week in his long career?" ....Yes, definately. Picasso among others created vast amounts of amazing work. Picasso could turn on....and paint layers and layers and layers of amazing stuff. I think it is very important in art to not create fixed determiners about what the brain or a creative person is capable of. 3.) "There is a limit to the creating capabilities of the brain." ...Of course not! Only if you think so. It is a known fact that we only use 10% of our brain. I mean the greatest genius has only used about 10%. There is a LOT unused that could be used and no one knows how much a person could tap into. Creativity is absolutely limitless and only limited by the concepts of the one creating. However, life can limit our inspiration and herein can lay the problem. Purpose is also an important factor and the purpose you are creating for can create a problem in your work.

4.) "Can a best artist create hundred pieces of good quality work in a limited time frame? As a Biologist I can tell the world the human brain has no such capability." I don't think that the time or quantity is a factor, however, Picasso did this for sure. I am not one to limit the "capabilities" of the brain. The brain is one of the great unknown frontiers and usually when we think we have it figured out, something pops up and surprises us! I don't think we can say what the brain can do or not because we really don't know yet.

However, creating lots of work does not mean it is good...and creating a little bit of work doesn't mean it is good. Just because someone wants someone to create a lot of art for money doesn't mean it is great or not great. Quantity is not quality and personal preference also doesn't necessarily agree with everyone.

As I have said from the beginning, there are very few excellent artists. There are few masters or genius's. There is a lot of "junk" no doubt, but those who hit that magical inspiration spot can do whatever it is they wish and produce limitless amazing originality.
It seems now the art center is on the Internet!Yes, science is universal , so is art. However, some people are creating these artificial barriers. However, there will be influences of different places on art but not on science. So science is more universal than art.
Ninon CZ said:
There is science in art and art in science, but they cannot be reduced one to the other. Science is about objectivite discourse and art is about subjectivity..art is very personal. Science is an objective discourse.
Science has its own world. There is no "Indian" science and "Western" science there is just science which stands alone. Science begins on a global/humanity/universal level. Art is the opposite and begins at the individual level. Art on the other hand is very subjective and personal.
To make Picasso carry all the West on his shoulders is too much. So, to attribute Picasso as a "Western Artist" is not keeping with fact. The center of art was in Paris and then Italy.

Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa said:
Science & art are not opposite , Ninon. Art Lab is created to explore the relationship between art & science. There are discussions on this network that try to show this relationship. These days almost all the established artists are depending on hype. Marketing people are creating these artificial summits. This is a fact. If you choose not to see it, we can't say anything about it! Yes, artists need buyers to survive. Buyers can buy anything they want. But please don't let them try to tell the world what they are buying is the best.
Krishna

Ninon CZ said:
The "science is the true language of creation?" Was this a joke or are you serious? Science is the exact opposite of art. You can express your art in scientific terms if you choose to, but it is not THE only way.

"Impossible" for who? This is not a proven fact and I have given quite a few examples of prolific artists.

Artists cannot survive on other artists "hype" nor does this limit or expand their work. If everyone is "selling" and no one is "buying" all art would die. This is a bogus statement from all angles.

Prince Freakasso said:
Dr.Krishna congrats to a scientific mind,you are right now the only person speaking the true language of creation.I am amazed!Yes it is impossible for any artist to churn out masterpieces simultaneously.Even in Da vinci's case,The "Mona Lisa"takes precedence over other works by the same artist. Even biologically in a family,one child may become a winner and a genius,the rest are also ran.The strange thing I find (mind you this is my feeling,not meant to be the






gospel) is that artists are into a kind of lobby,enjoying each others umbrella protection.

This attitude of ego, so called seniority and groupism is gradually ringing the death knell of genuinely creative art and artists. I beleive that the artists battlefield is on the gallery wall.Open to debate,criticism,defeat or appreciation,yet we find senior artists afraid to compete with emerging ones. Most artists are into hyping each other up,and this had lead to most of the art being substandard.Art selling on the reputation of an artist is fine,but it should and must have creative expression.This Artist,Gallery,Collector and Media nexus needs to do a rethink,to enable art reach it's true zenith. All the best....PRINCE

RSS

Badge

Loading…

© 2017   Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service