Does art cease to exist when the artist performs his craft no

>>9723640
What? It's the contrary actually, the artist has to perform for an audience, when he forgets about his audience, about what people want, then his art becomes shapeless, dull, hollow.

>>9723640
An artist that works only for himself is an egoist, therefore his art lost some of its bright. An artist that wants to see people appreciate his efforts and be happy that he can make people happy knows the true meaning of the word art.

>>9723649
>>9723661
>t. consumers, not artists

>>9723640
Kafka's Hunger Artist believed that the artist's vision and ambitions can only be appreciated by the artist himself, and thus the artist's ambition must be separate from the audience's expectations. Art does not necessarily die when it caters to the audience's will, but rather the artist himself dies.

>>9723649
are you in the right place?

>>9723671
I think I am...

>>9723680
You have to go back

>>9723684
no, you~

>>9723649
Sounds like cuck ideology to me

>>9723684
But I'm not the one posting /pol/ memes in a miserable attempt to offend someone you doesn't even know on an image board. You don't belong here, honestly.

>>9723684
/lit/ is the cesspool of the cesspool of the internet

>>9723640
No. How did you come up with that dumb idea in the first place? Umberto Eco himself says that it is pointless to write just for yourself and he's 100% correct.
Obviously, the writer shouldn't be a demagogue like Stephen King or a YA writer, but a piece of art isn't good art if only the artist enjoys and understands it.

you can't work only for yourself, your identity is linked to how others see you. you can take autist out of the society but you can't take pony porn away from the autist

>>9723700
>Umberto Eco
>Artist

Stopped reading right there, faggot.

>>9723709
His books about the middle ages are some of the best about this subject.

>>9723709
This meme is seriously getting out of hand. Did you even read his shit?

>>9723661

So long as you fail to see art beyond terms of pleasuring yourself or other people, what you do is not art at all.

>>9723640
i think so

>>9723709
I guess you hated that movie with Sean Connery, right?

>>9725519
>he watches Hollywood kike propaganda

wew

>>9723640
It should always be for both, but it must also serve some transcendental purpose for everyone's benefit other than just meaningless narcissistic bullshit like modern art.

>>9723640
Art only comes to life with an audience.
In literature, a reader's interpretation (whether legit or dumb) is what finishes the work.
It does matter if you are able to write a play that would pass as Shakespeare today. He wrote for an audience of his time and place fully aware.

After I read about Lovecraft, I realised that you need to be in that lucky spot where
>You make yourself happy
>Others enjoy your writing the way it is

>>9726844
>lovecraft

Go back to Rebbit, you fucking fag

>>9726848
What is wrong with enjoying some out of date victorian prose and wacky monster stuff from time to time?
And I didn't draw this conclusion from his stories, but from his biographies.

>>9723649
get out pleb. we /lit/ patricians only like self indulgent consciously inaccessible maximalist novels