On art and freedom

[Womble]

A common conception is that human creativity, particularly artistic creativity, will flourish only under conditions of unbridled freedom. Limitations and inhibitions of any sort—goes this line of thinking—are anathema to art.

The history of man’s attempt to evoke beauty and meaning with the materials of life has shown the very opposite to be the case: that “oppressive” circumstances have stimulated humanity’s most profound and innovative creations, while conditions of unmitigated freedom yield lesser and shallower works. Indeed, working within bonds is intrinsic to the process and product of artistic creation: the challenge to reduce a landscape or personality to a two-dimensional surface of limited size is what makes a great painting; the need to express a thought or feeling with a limited number of words arranged in accordance with rigid laws of meter and rhyme is what makes a great poem. The very essence of art, it can be said, flows from the tension between the expanse-seeking spirit of the artist and the constraints of the medium and circumstances by and under which it expresses itself.

Agree or disagree?

[AvatarIII]

yeah i guess that makes sence. surely though the reason freedom and (happyness for example) yeild fewer and shallower works is because the artist/writer has nothing to strive for, and it is the strive for perfection in our lives that make us human?

[Womble]

yeah i guess that makes sence. surely though the reason freedom and (happyness for example) yeild fewer and shallower works is because the artist/writer has nothing to strive for, and it is the strive for perfection in our lives that make us human?

Of course- but this raises the question which circumstances really serve us better- those in which we have nothing to strive for on those which force us to overcome powerful obstacles? Do we actually want to end up in conditions of unmitigated freedom?

[idlewild202]

Hmm... that is interesting. And yes, I do for the most part agree.

I personally believe that great art comes from the desire to express a feeling, emotion, or presence. For artists, creating a work of art is the only way they know how to express what they are expierencing. This art could be in the form of drawing/painting, sculpture, dance, music, writing, etc.

I could see how confinement and limitation of freedom could cause such emotions to grow inside a person, thus the emotion they want to express is stronger, so when they create their art they pour more passion into it, and thus, the finished product has more depth and emotion to it than if it had been created by someone only half-heartedly feeling what they were trying to express.

I know that's how I am when I draw. Sometimes when I am overly excited or sad or feeling strongly about something my fingers start to "itch" because I want to draw so badly. What I do end up drawing at those times turns out to be really nice. But on days when I'm just feeling "blah" and I try and draw something it normally ends up in the trash

[AvatarIII]

i think the REAL question is; if we had unmitigated freedom, would we need art at all?

[uknesvuinng]

I sort of agree, but I think it misses the point somewhat. In music, the classical structure and classic use of tonality became a real crush on creativity for a while, as practically no one but Mozart could do anything interesting with it (Yeah, he was that good). When the Romantic era kicked off and abandoned much of the strict form, creativity flourished greatly. Music became even more creative with the 20th century movement towards atonality, leading to forms such as 12-tone and frequent key changes and key obfuscation. The least "creative" music has become "pop" music, with its cookie-cutter, generic chord progressions and (for all intents and purposes) non-existent forays into weakened or obscured tonality. Observing the history of other art forms, the real noticeable increase in interesting and creative expression came not from strict adherence to classic forms, but experimenting with new forms and new ideas.

The true value of art isn't just to simply express ideas, but to also challenge culture and explore new methods and new ideas. Art is an aggressive force in society, fighting against the status quo and countering the conservative nature of society (it's tendency to resist change, not the political ideology). Art should offend, attack what society holds sacred, and seek new forms of expression.

With that said, adherence to form provides structure to the various types of art that assists the aesthetics, and there are certain elements that are almost a necessity. And being well versed in "proper" technique can only help the artist. Constraints on form do require one delve deeper into the imagination to express an ideal, but such constraints should not be held sacrosanct and inescapable. Those limitations must in some ways be fought against by the very art they benefit.