I’m always surprised when people people try to look at art in a way that describes why people make art and is there some kind of shared trait or characteristics between people who are “weirdly driven to create interesting things.” (quoted from the review)
I think this misses a larger and actually more interesting question.
Why are people who create things more interested in the how of creation while the non-creators (for lack of a better word) seem to focus on the why.
I wonder if this is not the main disconnect in our culture between people who are interested in art and people who are only somewhat interested in art – granted art has become ever more challenging over the past 60 years (as has everything else) but I wonder if this challenge is the primary issue with the general publics issues with art.
Those of us that are interested in art pursue it and frankly devour it with a gusto not unlike an obsessive eater at an all you can eat buffet. We are intensely interested in this shifting and ever changing visual world seeking out those new ideas before others and moving forward when we have seen the germane concept become repeated or stale. While those who are not as interested find themselves in a world that has visually (and the ideas behind these visuals) pass them by, for the art they have become comfortable with is the art of the familiar and accepted.
The Art Instinct by Denis Dutton may cover this, but judging by the Jonah Lehrer review in the Washington Post Book World this weekend, I doubt that it does.