Among the artists we also distinguish the "creatives" (with a hint of disdain).
And they - the artists, creative people - with the same disdain they say about "outdated art" (or, as they put it there? "- Apparently stronger and far more piercing
).
"Creative" suggests that art has changed, it now new
problem - not to transfer feelings (as before), and thought.
That is why they are pushing so on "context".
OK.
Then what happens? And that's what.
One of the best definitions of art that I have met:
"Art - a way to transfer non-personal feelings".
Try this definition instead of "feelings" substitute "thoughts" -
"Art - a non-personal way of communicating ideas".
And this art? Heh-heh.
This is journalism, essays, heromantiya - but not art.
Why is the concept of "creative art" has become so widespread?
I see two reasons:
1. (And home) - the press is very difficult to write about emotions and "emotional"
art - it is difficult to translate into words what words is not and does not need them.
They are very easy to write about the creative sites - which, in fact,
are the words embodied in the material.
And because in today's media-space weight journalists far more than
artists and art together, they (journalists) and set the tone.
2. An army of "creator" of the advertising agency also wants higher
"Spiritual" status. Bursting of artists. And the wage increase, however.
A fellow journalists (after all, is often taught in some faculties)
he is ready to help.
So I personally think that "creative art" - is empty. And best
modern art is not creative, but real.
Take even Hearst skull - yes there art buzzing pohlesche than in the "Black Square". What is creativity?