Huh. You've never been much around in art circles, I can tell. Any serious visual artists or musician pour their heart and soul into their work. What have you got to lose as a writer if your work is rejected? Some intellectual pride? Try having your soul thrown into the trashcan. You're dead wrong, mate.
It's still as much a work of creativity and intellect. Good post Almighty, but I think I’ll have to agree to disagree somewhat here. A celebrated painting can be produced by a monkey, a celebrated book cannot. So again, I stick to my premise that writing demands a greater level of intellect than visual arts. Ok, the analogy is a little cude! …doesn't mean that that glance is all it takes to absorb a painting… and this may have more to do with the viewers imaginings than the artists intentions. I may look at a blank sheet of paper and absorb something new from it with each viewing. An artist will feel all the same pressures as a writer. I think it varies with the criteria by which their work is being judged, and the intent of the artist. And again, I think writing and visual arts are judged by different criteria – with writing drawing a more intellectual judgement. trying to keep closer to the topic:I see the publishing focus as just another part of writing too much for the audience and not enough for yourself. I think writing with an audience in mind ( be that be a single reader, a publisher or an audience on this website) is fun! Whatever motivates, inspires gives satisfaction to a writer is good—even if that be focusing on publication. But when writers freak out over the thought that they won’t get published, the fear of failure has overridden joy in process of seeking success, and I would assume they are setting themselves up to fail.
Huh. You've never been much around in art circles, I can tell. Any serious visual artists or musician pour their heart and soul into their work Actually, I have been around the music scene a reasonable amount, being any ‘amateur’ violin maker – amateur only in the sense that it is not my primary source on income. I take absolutely no intellectual pride whatsoever in any instrument I’ve ever made, nor have I poured my heart and soul into any. I’ve pored in my time, craftsmanship and sporadic enthusiasm—or is that the same thing as heart and soul? Hmmmm. I would obviously never seek to have a violin judged by the same criteria as a manuscript, therefore the rejection of one could not the same as the rejection of the other – and the success of one cannot be the same as the success of another. Different art forms require different talents, and I stick to my premises that writing demands a greater intellectual capacity than other forms of art and craft. (The average person would probably ‘fear’ having their intellectual expression criticized more than they would their chisel stroke, and fear, I doubt is good motivation.) Why would people fear not being publish, as the original post suggested? It’s interesting to ponder, and I think it has something to do with the nature of the writing itself – but as I said – I may be wrong! Between you and me, I’ve never made a violin primaly for the fun of making it, and often the making is not fun at all! It’s a drag. I make violins to be played, and heard. In fact, I would never make another again if I thought it would never be played and heard! So I can well appreciate someone writing with the primary intent of being published and read. Nothing wrong with that, so long as they don’t ‘freak out’ over it! For that would be more a reflection of their insecurities than ambition, in my opinion.
Going through the chore of building violins (as it feels to you) hardly makes up for inside knowledge of what it means to express yourself as a composer, like being a frame-maker doesn't give you insight into being a visual artist. I've made a living as an illustrator for 15 years and if you somehow tried to suggest that I don't take it nearly as personal or serious as a writer would his work, I would strike it up to your ignorance. Many of my friends are artists and musicians and I know they feel exactly the same way. The only thing I read from your post is that you don't understand the depth of other art forms very well, and I think that's a shame for you.
ed... they're only 'almost nonexistent' if you don't write well and don't have anything to offer that total strangers will want to read... otherwise, your chances at pushing 60 are no worse than a neophyte 30-something-year-old's... and no one you query will be asking your age! a 'pre-existing market' for fiction is simply the potential number of readers who'll want to buy your book... if it's a good one, the market is there... if it's not, it isn't... if you're referring to one for non-fiction, then it = those professional connections you have that will provide a ready-made market for your book... such as with a how-to in some technical area where you've made a name for yourself and can offer seminars and such to promote/sell the book, as well as having professional association memberships that provide marketing opportunities...
Ed, I too am in my late fifties. So what's your point? (I ain't leaving this ball of rock anytime soon)
I’m not sure where you came up with the idea that I am suggesting other artists don’t take their work seriously, that varies with individuals, and I still have not been convinced that other forms of art require the same intellectual capacity as writing—sure rejection of anything can be hurtful and taken personally, emotions can play on anything. Trying not to stray too far from the original the topic here, but one of my favourite artist is Brett Whiteley. I remember him interviewed with a bunch of other artists, and all questioned on how to become a ‘great’ artist. Study this great artist, that movement, learn to appreciate this style and the depth of that, etc, etc. Then the question was asked of Bret, and he said, “buy pencil and piece of paper and go for it.” And for me art is that simple. When I like to paint or draw, I do. If I like a piece of art for whatever reason, I like it! Oh well, perhaps it is a shame! And yes, sometime creativity is a chore! But even chores can yield satisfaction.
I'd have to disagree here. "Visual arts" is a pretty big category. Your examples are all fairly unstructured abstract art, but that's just one tiny piece of the visual arts. I would class the infinity of things to learn about illustration, for example - the main kind of art that I'm exposed to - as intellectual effort. There'd be perspective, shading, colors, color mixing, different techniques of drawing, and a bazillion things that I don't even know enough to name. And just as writers have a history of context and meaning in language to draw from, artists would have man's entire history of art and images to, again, draw context and meaning from. Then there'd be the process of selecting from all of those techniques and all of that knowledge, making choices and implementing them to make an artistic statement. (That doesn't mean that I'm saying that the unstructured abstract art doesn't have just as much intellectual rigor - I just don't know anything whatsoever about it, and it doesn't address my everyday visual experience in the same way, so I couldn't say.) Maurice Sendak, for example, certainly wasn't just slapping paint or ink on a canvas, and I doubt that any monkey's work could be mistaken for his. If I Google to look at his illustrations, I can easily imagine a lifetime's worth of intellectual accomplishments behind them. For example, have a look at Sendak's illustrations in _The Juniper Tree_, and Sir John Tenniel's in _Alice's Adventures In Wonderland_. (You can see examples of both by Googling.) In Sendak's work, you can see the use of the nineteenth-century crosshatched style of Tenniel and others, but you can also see Sendak's voice clearly expressed in that style. Then look for _Chicken Soup With Rice_. There's that voice again, expressed with utterly different techniques. _Where The Wild Things Are_. _From The Night Kitchen_. _Dear Milli_. Look at the moods he can achieve, the huge differences in each work, while still maintaining that voice. This is not a person who learned a batch of techniques and produced rote craftsmanlike work for the rest of his life. I love Rumer Godden's writing, and I love Maurice Sendak's illustrations just as much. In my opinion, the intellectual achievement behind Sendak's visual art surpasses that of most authors. _The Light Princess_ by George McDonald, for example, is a fine tale, but I can't separate the experience of the words from that of the illustrations. I just pulled out my copy and opened it to the illustration of the princess leaning out of her luxurious rowboat, looking at the prince, who's about to stand in the lake and drown for her. The water his up to his neck - he has to raise his chin high to keep it out of his mouth. He's sober, but he's perfectly calm, and his eyes are focused on hers. He'll likely die within the hour, but her bearing is still graceful, still offhand, and she leans only a little toward him - she's keeping her distance. He's asked for food, and she has the wafer in her hand, but she's holding it up, not toward him - in spite of his need and the fact that he's dying for her, she's paused to look at him rather than immediately give him what he's asked for. And she's holding the tray with the neat stack of wafers and glass of wine _perfectly_ level. I'm not sure what that means to me, but I keep looking back at it, so I think it's communicating something that I haven't yet found words for. She's looking at him. Her uncharacteristically serious, puzzled expression and slightly widened eyes hold the hint that she might, finally, learn to care for something other than her own laughter. But I can also see that she might very well not. When he drowns, she might laugh and jump off the rowboat and frolic in the lake again - perhaps after eating the wafers and drinking the wine that he didn't live long enough to finish. In fact, she might very well never give him the food that he's asked for - she might reject the thoughts that are growing in her, and leave him right now. She's poised on a moment. I get all that from the illustration. Yes, I got the context from the words, but the illustration adds enormously to the meaning for me. ChickenFreak
Sure learning technique in any art/craft may draw on the intellect, but I don’t think to the extent that writing does. Writing is more of a mental exercise and requires little physical imput in compasison to say playing an musical instrument, or controlling a chizzel. Writing is more of an intellectual exercise, and is almost entirely devoid of a physical component. Too tired to think much on it just now, but composing music, as previously mentioned, is an interesting one, an possible quite like writing—in that it makes use of symbols to transmit complex information. Visual art may cut direct to the subject matter without symbology. Writing doesn’t have that luxury. Lines on a page in the form of writing are representations of the subject at hand and require an entirely different order of intellect to manipulate. I get all that from the illustration.And others will get something else! They may even get a great deal out of looking at a blank piece of paper, or the works of Albert Tucker ( love his paintings!) what you gleam as a viewer is as much down to your imagination as it is down to the artist. That’s half the fun of art! And fun discussion, but should we move it to new thread? Finding it hard to keep on topic
You're basis this on the fact a guy said "get a pen and paper and go for it"? Do you know what my advice to someone starting out writing would be? Those exact same words.
Well if that's the case then, at 68 I might as well crawl in a hole and die. Being serious though, poppycock. I had my first articles published when I was 60. When you send a MS off to an agent or publisher they have no idea of your age. They judge, the writing and the commercial value of the writing on the sheets of paper in front of them and thoses sheets of paper do not show grey hairs, bald heads, wrinkles, crows feet, age spots or sagging backsides. Age has nothing to do with it, so cheer up and don't be so despondent.
Visual art is symbology, in the most literal sense. So matter-of-fact writing isn't possible? It seems to me that your idea of both art forms is a little jumbled. I mix both crafts in my work. Writing scripts and then illustrating the stories. Some scenes can be summed up in one line with their meaning totally apparent, but once it comes to illustrating it, much more space and complexity is necessary. It's a move from tell to show, because in visual art you don't really have the luxury of being lazy and just tell. In other parts of my process the labour is somewhat reversed. I waste a full page of script on what could have been nailed with a scribble in the margin. As for your argument that all it takes to make art is to pick up a pencil... I second what Melzaar said. Compare your monkey paintings to random da-da poetry. A monkey could write that too. Does it mean a monkey could write Shakespeare? Could a monkey paint impressionism? Be real now.
Writing in order to get published, sounds like a stupid concept to me. Why write about something you might not even care about just to get your name out there? So then your name is associated with something you don't care to represent. Congratulations. Yeah, I'm an egomaniac, I want to become rich and famous and controversial and have my own page on Wikipedia. And I absolutely want to publish. But only what I've written out of sincere enthusiasm for the story, something I believe in and stand behind. If that gets turned down by all decent publishers, I may even stoop down to books-on-demand and spam up forums in order to sell at least 2 copies, but I'd never write to please. That is also why I turn down ghostwriting jobs. I've been asked a few times, but naah... Not me, so I won't do it.
There's nothing wrong with writing to get published and paid. Some people look at writing first and foremost as a job. It's no more stupid than any other job that one might do for the purpose of getting money. Better than most, in fact, if you can make a living at it.
Yeah, that doesn't make as much sense. If you're doing it because you want your name out there and attached to a work as an artistic creation, it makes to that you'd want it to be as true to yourself as possible (and as good as possible; not just thrown together). I did spend some time working from home just doing writing for pay (not fiction; but a fair amount of ghost-writing etc.). It sure beat having to report to a 9 to 5 job
"get a pen and paper and go for it"? Do you know what my advice to someone starting out writing would be? Those exact same words. Me too, so long as he had learnt grammar, punctuation, a wide vocabulary as so on. With practice you can learn to draw well with little schooling. Yes, visual art is symbolic, but not in the order / complexity of language. Language employs semiosis – specific signs/sounds/symbols representing specific meanings. Learning semiosi requires an entirely different order of intellect and education than recognizing the pictorial symbology of art, no matter how skilfully it is painted. With no schooling chimps can recognize a painting of another chimp as a chimp, but they cannot recognize the word ‘chimp’ as representative of a chimpanzee. Art symbology may be devoid of semiosis, writing does not have that luxury. So matter-of-fact writing isn't possible?I don’t know what you mean by that statement/question As for your argument that all it takes to make art is to pick up a pencil... Yes, you can pick up a pencil and create art. Don’t you think that is possible? Does it mean a monkey could write Shakespeare? Could a monkey paint impressionism? No, however a monkey could recognize the subject matter of an impressionist painting, whilst failing to grasp the subject matter of Shakespeare. - I think we are going on different trajectories here!
