At what point do you stop being an artist? Can you define an artist by his or her artistic expression, or is there something beyond that? I'd like to think an artist is still an artist even if there's norhing particularly artistic going on. I don't think of Michelangelo as being any less of an artist, even though he's dead. Of course, the problem here is that art continues speaking over a period of time, which means that the expression through art is always constant. That shouldn't come as a suprise to anyone except for maybe me, but for the most part that shouldn't be suprising. But the fact that art lives on really makes me wonder whether or not the interpretation that we are so used to hearing and making on our own is anywhere near what it should be. Of course the key would be just to ask the artist's but they're generally vague since they spend the majority of their time, well dead. In the cases of Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Picasso and the like, they spend all their time taking the long dirt nap, which makes it really hard to ask them if they'd officially lost their mind, or what it was they were thinking. Not that it mattered, if they were really as intelligent as everyone made them out to be, they wouldn't tell us what to think. Really, the fact that art can be interpreted is what makes it endure in the human psyche. At least to me. I really think people enjoy the fact that they can completely and totally rip apart someone elses work, or even just appreciate it in their own way, and that is why they listen to certain music, or why they enjoy viewing certain art pieces. At least, that's my thought, I've been told that what I think doesn't matter. Well, that's my semi-deep thought for today. I'll have better once I get a bit more sleep. I can barely keep my eyes open, which is sad indeed, considering I've got music blaring in my ears at the moment. Anyway feel free to leave your own thought provoking comments.
Inside looking out. . .(thanks Jerm for the picture)