| |
|
Hester: I think that autotelic(not familiar with the term, hope i am using it right) art does exist but i would say it would be most prevailent in the works of outsider artists
I don't want to attach undue importance to the word in this discussion, but that's not my understanding of what autotelic means. As I said above, it's basically any activity whose purpose is itself, rather than a motivation external to itself. I think regardless of whether you see the artist-as-bricoleur (or digester - hah! That's a no-nonsense way of looking at it) or artist-as-ethereally-inspired, art is autotelic as far as artists are doing art as an end-in-itself. (Some may not, I suppose).
The distinction you made there is more about "where does art come from?" rather than "what is it like to create art?" Which leads us to the study of art than the doing of art -another interesting question, but a different one and not in my view of more practical utility. Personally, I have no idea if the ideas I get come from some deep well of inspiration, whether I'm touched by divine madness, whether I have my head up my ass or whether I'm remixing and layering the entire set of experiences and influences that define me as a cultural entity. A bit of everything, no doubt. But does anybody worry about this? What gets me where I live is what 7s said:
I think that fits with my experience of moments of 'flow' where things drop into place and I type like a demon. There's a lot of time spent working toward that state though.
And this is where I stick, because I'm finding it hard to start the slog toward that flow state.
Also, I like what Hester said: we seem to have the Artist as Bricoleur, situated within and navigating culture, operating a creative agency which is a joyful play with pre-existing elements. Bricolage aside, I like this because I also see art as being fundamentally ludic (and occasionally ludicrous), which may seem a little at odds with the whole "treat art as work" theme discussed earlier -but I suppose the key is to have balance. Should we treat art as something that should come with deadlines and schedules, or as something more like a game, or both?
The Csikszentmihalyi definition of the 'flow' experience and it's components:
1. Clear goals (expectations and rules are discernible and goals are attainable and align appropriately with one's skill set and abilities).
2. Concentrating and focusing, a high degree of concentration on a limited field of attention (a person engaged in the activity will have the opportunity to focus and to delve deeply into it).
3. A loss of the feeling of self-consciousness, the merging of action and awareness.
4. Distorted sense of time - one's subjective experience of time is altered.
5. Direct and immediate feedback (successes and failures in the course of the activity are apparent, so that behavior can be adjusted as needed).
6. Balance between ability level and challenge (the activity is neither too easy nor too difficult).
7. A sense of personal control over the situation or activity.
8. The activity is intrinsically rewarding, so there is an effortlessness of action.
9. When in the flow state, people become absorbed in their activity, and focus of awareness is narrowed down to the activity itself, action awareness merging (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975. p.72).
Not all are needed for flow to be experienced.
Some of which helps with the differentiation between 'game' and 'work'. Both have clear goals, for example, but 'work' may not provide some of us with a sense of personal control over the situation or direct and immediate feedback, or even balance between ability and challenge. But for the doing of art, this does suggest that clear, attainable goals (especially simple things like a daily word count if you're a writer, which Allecto suggested earlier) may be a good starting point.
(PS: Hester, I loved the art you posted in the Gallery thread, by the by. Was just too lurk-y to comment at the time.) |
|
|
