What do you mean?

They still play the same game. Only difference is that they make their own rules on a different platform. There's no way of escaping it.

How can an artist be also an outsider, then? I don't see the logic in what you're saying.

Why not? Anyway, I have to catch my ferry in 10min.

To be continued.......

Ok, you're just being stupid.

to say that art needs no audience is a LIE

all art needs an audience, and art without an audience is not art.

music without an audience is pointless. art without a viewer is pointless.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to sarramkrop again.

GOOD art has everything to do with talent, process, skill, technique, etc. EVERYTHING.
Art is not just about the image presented, but also about HOW it is presented, how it was made, etc.


ART IS the product. Otherwise everyone is an artist in their own mind, which is BULLSHIT. eve conceptual art was actually the words used to describe the concept, not a thought in someone's head.

NOTHING is beyond praise or criticism. that is naive and childish. In the real world, anything you create is up for criticism and analysis.

tokolosh, art by it's very functiojn, is communication, and one does not attempt communication without at the very least, thinking some about who you are trying to communicate to.
in that very real and urgent sense, art HAS to be made with the viewer/listener/etc somewhat in mind.

Florya, I am sorry to ay this is a very chuildish and naive and completely mis-informed view of art.
art is communication, and someone who has studied art and stufdied artists and music and theorya nd art history will see a work based NOT only on his personal opinions, but how that work fits into the continuity of art as a human endeavor. a person with art history background will see something in an artwork that may not be evident EVER to someone without such a background. Only children see things as naively a syou descirbe and children don;t know jack fucking shit about anything except whether they "like" it or not.

all you end up with if you do this is pure navel-gazing art, which is EASY, boring, and pointless.

this is just NOT true Florya. NOT TRUE AT ALL.
art does not exist outside of life, or history or society. anyone with a basic art history background can SEE quite easily influences, ideas, and references in art, and if they might be guessing slightly then that is allright, for it points out where the vioewer is coming from with his or her own perception.

I think it all depends on what you like. Introspective art can be very interesting. Well at least for me. It's a peek into someones mind.

Also, art obviously needs an audience, but I don't think that an artist necessarily needs to create art with that as the primary intention.

Getting back to Sarra about Outsider art. I have a friend who works at a home with handicapped people, and one of his patients makes very intriguing stuff. From time to time, visitors bring him old jerseys, socks, scarfs etc, and he unknits everything and rolls up the wool into giant 2 meter wide oval shapes. They sometimes take years to finish. He's extremely passionate, obsessive, systematic and determined once he starts. Amazing to see. No pretension whatsoever. No intention to make art and certainly no plan to exhibit it either.
Brut as can be.

I doubt that his work will ever land up in a gallery. Surely it deserves to be credited as art in some way?

they call that "folk art"

Ok, but can it qualify as being good art?

oh hell yeah.

Therefore, by definition it doesn't need an audience to proclaim it being art, right?

nothing needs an audience to be called art, but with no audience the art is irrelevant. if nooone sees it, then it may as well not exist. However, in th case above tokolosh, YOU have seen it, and YOU were moved by it, and therefore YOU are the audience proclaiming it "art" see?

art is the yoga (union) between the work itself, and the viewer's mind. It therefore is different for each viewer.

I think that a lot of people get confused with the quality of art that's made for oneself, and art that's made with the intention of getting it sold. Both can be art, but there's a distinctive difference.

I see no difference whatsoever. whether a work is sold or not is purely up in the air.
some works are created on commission. that does not amke them any less of an art piece. Picasso"s Guernica, possibly the greatest anti-war artwork in the history of man, was created as a commission show piece for the World's Expo.

in my opinion, there are no works of art made by an artist just for themselves. All works are meant for display, whether they are for sale or not. art in a vacuum is pointless and useless. even art made by you just for you will end up on your wall and seen by anyone who enteres that room.