I don’t necessarily like the author’s definition of the difference between professional creativity and regular creativity. The author says, “They teach but not by inviting questions. Or if they invite questions, they direct questions to someone other than the speaker. Or performer. Or creator” (1). My question is can’t amateurs fuel this same sort of questioning from their work? Is the author demeaning those who he thinks are not “professional” artists? How is this an important difference? I believe that some amateur art can be more insightful than professional art. It’s all in the eye of the spectator.
Week 9 Question?
Published by
I agree with you that it is all in the eye of the viewer. Im not a big art guy so I like very few art but I still understand the time that goes into them. I don’t think he was trying to be demeaning towards non professional artists, I just think he has a better understanding for professional artists and understands a lot more about them. Amateur art is normally not featured and he is just focused on professional art that has made it into galleries and what not.