I forgot to mention that there is a follow-up to the bureaucratic battle which was waged between the Editor and the dark forces of Mandatory Alcohol Education. Although no spears were finally used in the confrontation, the Editor did receive a moderately courteous email waiving the requirement.
Such are the anemic victories of this modern age . . .
Sunday, January 06, 2008
The Meaning of Art - Solved at Last!!!
Going back to the honorable roots of this most honorable blog (I think I'm turning Japanese, or at least my adjectives are, can anyone help with this?) this post has no plot, points of interest, purpose, or anything else that does or does not begin with the letter p. Unless you include pointlessness.
To continue: the Editor has always been a staunch believer that art is independent of the observer, unlike particles that obey the laws of quantum mechanics. (This will not be a discussion of how art differs from quarks, but it's a point worth noting nonetheless.) In other words, a painting is good whether or not it is seen, a piece of music is good whether or not it is heard (although it is ideally more frequently heard when it's good), and a book, or piece of writing, is good even if no one but the writer ever knows it exists. Beauty, in short, is neither in the bloodshot eye of the potentially illiterate, moonshine-swilling scum of this world, nor in the jaundiced eye of the poncy, pompous, pretentious and ultra-pc ambiguously sexualized artistes of this world. So why the desire to post writing on the ultimate public forum (except the surface of the moon - if I were a corporation, I'd have an enormous billboard up there so fucking fast) - the internet? Not, of course, that I am implying that my writing is good. Nor am I implying that it's bad. That's not the issue. The issue is, no matter what the grammatical or philosophical quality of the writing, why post it?
See, if I had real confidence in my own ability, it ought to be just the same to me, typing into a word document hour after hour. It shouldn't matter whether or not it's accessible to anyone else, because its quality is unrelated to the reader or lack thereof. So my posting of this dubiously worthwhile material is completely illogical. It's a combination of either a) the assumption that somewhere out there there's a person who will just love my style, or b) the desperate, hoping praying longing for some person out there to just love my style. The first implies that I'm a narcissist. The second suggests that I'm an idiot.
Both are true in differing degrees. But looking at this from a non-Editor-centric position, everyone has this same dilemma. How much to believe in yourself, versus how much to beg for attention, is the most difficult dichotomy of expression. It's hard to go through day after day hoping that someday someone will give a rat's ass; at the same time, if you care, you're negating any natural pride in your own objective worth.
I think that this is somewhat true for everyone who embarks on an artistic endeavor. Of course, this is just the sort of drivel that I deplore when I hear it, but bear with me. Everyone creates for a reason, and it's somewhere between an inability not to and a need to show that you've got something in you that can be put out in a form not entirely incomprehensible to the world at large. I guess it's the fact that the Mona Lisa would be great even if it were buried in the center of the earth, much like the Statue of Liberty buried in the sand on the Planet of the Apes - but the fact that enshrining it in the Louvre is what has made it great, to the world at large, really gets me. Get me? Probably not, since this is drivel.
Let's try again. Did Leonardo daVinci plan for his painting to be gawked at and admired by millions of people? No, probably not. Would it provide him with validation to know that this is so? Possibly, since most artists are insecure. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that in order to create art in its purest form, the critic can't critique, or even see, the art. The creation of true art then depends on an artist who is so supremely egotistical that no one else's opinion could possibly matter, and an artist in the possession of such self-confidence wouldn't need to show their art to anyone. There would be no urge to seek an audience, because it would be a pure impulse to create, with no ulterior motives.
If anyone has read this far, go have a cocktail and send me the bill. You people are better than a fucking shrink, in a multitude of ways: 1) unlike a shrink, your brain does not obey the laws of quantum mechanics on a macro level, i.e. your emotions exist in either a positive or negative state but not both, even when you are not observed; 2) you are not a shrink, which makes anything better.
To continue: the Editor has always been a staunch believer that art is independent of the observer, unlike particles that obey the laws of quantum mechanics. (This will not be a discussion of how art differs from quarks, but it's a point worth noting nonetheless.) In other words, a painting is good whether or not it is seen, a piece of music is good whether or not it is heard (although it is ideally more frequently heard when it's good), and a book, or piece of writing, is good even if no one but the writer ever knows it exists. Beauty, in short, is neither in the bloodshot eye of the potentially illiterate, moonshine-swilling scum of this world, nor in the jaundiced eye of the poncy, pompous, pretentious and ultra-pc ambiguously sexualized artistes of this world. So why the desire to post writing on the ultimate public forum (except the surface of the moon - if I were a corporation, I'd have an enormous billboard up there so fucking fast) - the internet? Not, of course, that I am implying that my writing is good. Nor am I implying that it's bad. That's not the issue. The issue is, no matter what the grammatical or philosophical quality of the writing, why post it?
See, if I had real confidence in my own ability, it ought to be just the same to me, typing into a word document hour after hour. It shouldn't matter whether or not it's accessible to anyone else, because its quality is unrelated to the reader or lack thereof. So my posting of this dubiously worthwhile material is completely illogical. It's a combination of either a) the assumption that somewhere out there there's a person who will just love my style, or b) the desperate, hoping praying longing for some person out there to just love my style. The first implies that I'm a narcissist. The second suggests that I'm an idiot.
Both are true in differing degrees. But looking at this from a non-Editor-centric position, everyone has this same dilemma. How much to believe in yourself, versus how much to beg for attention, is the most difficult dichotomy of expression. It's hard to go through day after day hoping that someday someone will give a rat's ass; at the same time, if you care, you're negating any natural pride in your own objective worth.
I think that this is somewhat true for everyone who embarks on an artistic endeavor. Of course, this is just the sort of drivel that I deplore when I hear it, but bear with me. Everyone creates for a reason, and it's somewhere between an inability not to and a need to show that you've got something in you that can be put out in a form not entirely incomprehensible to the world at large. I guess it's the fact that the Mona Lisa would be great even if it were buried in the center of the earth, much like the Statue of Liberty buried in the sand on the Planet of the Apes - but the fact that enshrining it in the Louvre is what has made it great, to the world at large, really gets me. Get me? Probably not, since this is drivel.
Let's try again. Did Leonardo daVinci plan for his painting to be gawked at and admired by millions of people? No, probably not. Would it provide him with validation to know that this is so? Possibly, since most artists are insecure. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that in order to create art in its purest form, the critic can't critique, or even see, the art. The creation of true art then depends on an artist who is so supremely egotistical that no one else's opinion could possibly matter, and an artist in the possession of such self-confidence wouldn't need to show their art to anyone. There would be no urge to seek an audience, because it would be a pure impulse to create, with no ulterior motives.
If anyone has read this far, go have a cocktail and send me the bill. You people are better than a fucking shrink, in a multitude of ways: 1) unlike a shrink, your brain does not obey the laws of quantum mechanics on a macro level, i.e. your emotions exist in either a positive or negative state but not both, even when you are not observed; 2) you are not a shrink, which makes anything better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)