You nailed it - I'm very confused. (But by no means insulted. I hope I'm ignorant, but educable.)
So you are saying the artist has no desire to improve through the mechanics of feedback? I'm back to the vacuum problem - how can they tell what is good without someone teaching/telling them so? They can rely on their own subjective appraisals, which are valid and can be quite accurate, but when are these artists, these people unconcerned with reviews of their work, created? When does their inner sense of "art" overwhelm them? In short, how do they know when they're "done" learning, becoming masters of their art?
If the response of people to that art - the gut response - isn't there, can we call it art? Can they? How will they know if we don't tell them? (Maybe not all of us can, not all the time, but someone must be able to?)
I think I've wandered deeper into philosophy than I should, but the question is still in my brain - how does a person grow without feedback, even in this solitary hobby? This elusive artist intrigues me.
no subject
So you are saying the artist has no desire to improve through the mechanics of feedback? I'm back to the vacuum problem - how can they tell what is good without someone teaching/telling them so? They can rely on their own subjective appraisals, which are valid and can be quite accurate, but when are these artists, these people unconcerned with reviews of their work, created? When does their inner sense of "art" overwhelm them? In short, how do they know when they're "done" learning, becoming masters of their art?
If the response of people to that art - the gut response - isn't there, can we call it art? Can they? How will they know if we don't tell them? (Maybe not all of us can, not all the time, but someone must be able to?)
I think I've wandered deeper into philosophy than I should, but the question is still in my brain - how does a person grow without feedback, even in this solitary hobby? This elusive artist intrigues me.