That thinking is completely wrong. You create something because you want that thing to exist in the world, not in order to be liked by people.
That thinking is completely wrong. You create something because you want that thing to exist in the world, not in order to be liked by people.
Many, if not most people want to have value to others. Including introverts. We want to behave in a prosocial manner within an embedded social context. Art itself was borne out of social contexts, especially music and storytelling. Most of us gain untold fulfilment from creating art that is valuable to others, i.e. art that people like.
I can speak to this myself: I have little motivation to create anything outside of a social context. When I create something exclusively for myself, it feels hollow. When the social context is there, I come alive. It brings me deep fulfilment to bring someone joy with art. Of course, I have to also like the art myself, otherwise it's just excessively sacrificial.
If you're individualistic enough to gain fulfilment from only creating for yourself, then all the power to you. But I'm tired of this being expressed as the only valid way to do things, especially since many people will be less fulfilled with this mindset.
If the intention is to please others, the art is at risk of being made in a top-down manner. The extreme extension of this being a public survey, the results of which determine what the artist does.
"People like boobs, so let's add more boobs". Or "people in the test screening didn't like the sad ending, we need to make a happy, audience-friendly ending".
There's always crossover. Artists must do things to make money (mass production of their work, selling their song to advertisers).
> "Of course, I have to also like the art myself"
And if not the art, then at least the pay day.
Some of the confusion in this thread is about the word "creativity". We can be creative in the kitchen tonight by adding a new ingredient to the sauce. We can't suddenly be artists in the kitchen tonight though.
If I understand correctly, your belief is that the art of 'highest value' is created in a vacuum from the approval of others. That's okay. However, for myself, and usually for most others, the most valuable art is simply that which brings them the greatest joy.
When it comes to creating art, I receive the greatest joy when I'm also giving others joy. I'm much better able to give others joy when I consider their tastes. So I take my own (actually quite extreme) desire for experimentation, my own sense of aesthetics, and find where that overlaps with people's tastes. It's a hybridization. Not top-down, or bottom-up.
My argument is that most people, being essentially prosocial, gain the most fulfilment when they incorporate the tastes of others. And sometimes, our value system can make us feel less fulfilled. In this case, I believe that the value system of 'ignoring the approval of others' makes most people feel less fulfilled.
Simply put, it's like sex: the best sex is simultaneously self-focused and other-focused. I view art exactly the same.
The original point about isolation is simple. It can be good for the creative process. That's not a controversial idea. Writers often get away, painters hide out in their studios. It doesn't mean they don't routinely draw inspiration from their social worlds.
By tapping into your own humanity, you tap into the joy of others. Your tastes will likely be shared by others. So in satisfying your own taste, you will be satisfying others. This can all be done in complete social isolation!
> I consider their tastes
Okay cool, but generally artists don't know the taste of their audience, other than they like art. That's why artists get nervous showing their work, because you're baring soul. The tastes and joy in others isn't relevant for the creative process that aligns with raw "truth-telling" artistic pursuits. Pleasing others is a nice secondary consequence of whatever you created, but when pleasing others is a key driver of the creative process, you might be limiting your work.