Painter on His Way to Work

On the previous Wednesday Thoughts on Art we were left wondering with Tolstoy’s perspective on “True Art”. For him, true art was only found when the piece communicated to the public the true singular emotion of the artist - and so creation was an exercise in sincerity and authenticity. If the piece was worth being called Art, then it would transmit to the crowd, clear and deep, the nature of the artist’s feelings. Art would function as an emotional link between the maker and the viewer, as a fluid dialect dependent of external elements to perpetuate. This is problematic if we consider an artist that paints or composes for no public - with nothing to connect the author feelings with, the piece of art would dissolute into nothingness, and wouldn't be considered art. Its hard to deny the title of “Artist” to a solitaire idealist, to an independent nihilist, or to a shy full of secrets: is if it even without a public, the inner value of the work itself stands to prove it’s maker as an artist - and who doesn't picture the classic romantic image of the loner genius creating for no one’s pride but him\herself? And if the author created an alter-ego, if all the emotions are therefor fabricated, would he be an artist? More, could one became an artist if he would burn every painting afterwords? This lead us to the big question regarding art as a relation: “After the last Man Dies, is there any art left?” Let us know what you think Tolstoy would think, and what you alone stand on! Next Week we’ll have a look at a perspective that I personally have in great consideration, until then, good Wednesday! By the way, this van Gogh painting was destroyed by fire in the Second World War… Artur Deus Dionisio -- For over three years, we are delivering art to more than 250.000 every day. We need $15.000 to create new version of DailyArt with new features and extra content. On this website you will find more details and help us: http://support.getdailyart.com. Thank you!