Making Art no. 4: "Between make anything and the artistic value".

Must art have some kind of strategy? History seems to show a distance between the ways of understanding the artistic study in different countries; It causes us to accept that any final product sometimes has consequences due to minute details, or almost unreliable philological bases, however, one does not intend any textual criticism or classical ecdotic since art can only be based on its meaning and the management of its economic preparation with diachronic processes like Greco-Latin, romantic and pagan precedents. Art, then, does not aim for social brilliance or indirect symbolic rewards since it mixes the cultured with the popular as a desire for self-representation beyond any style, whose most common procedure will be the provision of work done, the evaluation, or possible external help for the leading author of the artistic system, but not for the simple creative.

 // 

So how should it be presented? How to differentiate a poetic language from prosaic language? Does it belong to some biocultural analytical puzzle? Should your subjective and / or objective perception be specified? On average, no art offers any advantage over productive means, in addition, if art did not offer benefits and only demanded time, energy and resources, its cognitive patterns would not feed the hunger for information that leads to the meaningful matrices from which we can make valuable inferences. Therefore we like bright, null and distinct colors, sharp contours, complex shapes, designs and materials on surfaces; And the more flexible minds are to handle multiple patterns on multiple levels, and the more open their mastery of the information that surrounds them, the better they can predict and act in the face of the nonsense of a complex world not built for the art itself that concentrates the profusion of symbolic perception of visual, auditory and social behavior patterns.

 // 

And since emotional intensity helps to consolidate memory, the more attention is drawn to one or another X art, and the more it elicits responses, the more it can reconfigure our minds for its advantages over its purpose, identification, adaptation, and its continuity by allowing inferred meaning both at global anthropological levels, as well as at local historical, political, economic, technological, cultural, intellectual, and artistic levels. Works created by and for the flow of economic attention framed between a space, the media and forms that constitute it, pay for it and provide feedback just as its consumer does, who makes an appropriation of their choices making then uniques from which the product gains power over the repressed recreational subversion in the specialization of a defined exercise in the mercantile characteristics generated by its consumption with evolutionary exchange patterns understood as historical preferences and economic capacities. Taking us by the hand to the context of production defined by the economic, emotional, political, religious, social and cultural circumstances in which an artist is immersed when producing a work, which will demand time, energy and resources, and where their cognitive patterns will not be able to feed the hunger for the information that leads to the meaningful matrices of the final product from which it is possible to make valuable inferences; However, the work can reaffirm itself as a communicative manifesto depending on what is implicit in it.

 // 

Thus we get to the point where the artist must create art and not a market, and where the marketer will create a market but never an art. A situation almost similar to creating a currency available for a market that requires a transnational historical trend and be significantly flexible, and that may or may not be compared with some investment in real estate or with a simple collection of sports cards so, to offer anything is enough? Should art impress and make the viewer uncomfortable? Is 'Sonata for pepáphone and voice, opus 140' a good example? Are we talkig only about hunger? Have we reached the limit of making any kind of item a product? If I intend to relate a writing with a murderous look, should I care? The only sound that the air pump produces directly to the vagina is noise added to the immediate need to create a melody for such accompaniment, which in the end becomes the same thing: Noise. Which at the same time makes one wonder if everything about composing can be summed up to believing and getting involved in an idea or, if perhaps all the studies that one should or could have carried out were once without context before the idea of ​​perhaps the artist or producer in question only produces uninteresting, unnecessary works or products or around related definitions. Are the different kind of performances known? Is the presentation of an "Opus" more valuable to human sculptures like "Rushing man" or people like Estevan Mortensen? What kind of difference is on presenting yourself with agility and creativity as Dan Menendez "The piano juggler"? Do people understand or know the different examples that exist?

   

   

   

Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJQvHSZW3eg