During a weekend visit by my friend Shane we had the most wonderful opportunity to talk for hours about a variety of topics and I'd like to thank him for the inspiration of this blog.
Artists suck. Okay, that's an untrue, horrible generalization but I thought that knowing my audience they would either stop right there and never talk to me again or they'd want to know what would make me have that momentary fit of intolerance. And since I consider myself to be an artist of sorts I better clarify my intent.
In all of it's forms I think art is a valuable, important aspect of the human experience. On an individual level it's a (usually) thoughtful person's attempts at reaching out and communicating and translating a part of themselves. It could an be an external expression of her views and feelings about herself, her friends, her community, life, the universe, anything imaginable. Her art may say things she thinks are true or untrue or both. It may represent everything from the most beautiful to the most horrifying aspects of life. It doesn't have to be "right" or "perfect" but it does allow the artist the opportunity to create something that exists outside of herself and can stand on it's own. Most of my friends share a love of many of the same works of art because they speak to us and because what we identify with in the art is a projection of our self and world perceptions.
On a broader level art is part of the artifacts with which a society is remembered and judged. It's like the status update of a culture: it gives clues, puzzle pieces which when assembled reflect the broader picture of what that society is really about. Works created by artists of different ideologies may still show the mosaic of ideas that create the intellectual and social landscape of the society. If one wants to see how fragmented and diverse the American psyche is one can look at the artistic output of one city and compare it to another and you'll see what a broad spectrum of ideas that make up our national identity.
But what I find to be the most wonderful aspect of art is it's purely non-essential quality. It absolutely doesn't have to exist but it does. In effect, it's entirely useless. It doesn't supply nutrition, it doesn't protect against the elements, it doesn't give warmth or protection. It's completely unnecessary to our survival but we can't stop it from happening. The horses of Chauvet Cave didn't supply sustenance or function to increase the chance of humans to compete for resources with other organisms but reflected the growing intellectual and communicative prowess of our species. We don't have to make art to live but because we live we make art.
A society that produces great art is a reflection of that society's greatness. It exists because of an excess of resources and talent. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors had very little opportunity to make art because they were busy, well, hunting and gathering so that they and kind weren't dead. Jump forward about 30,000 years to a feudal society, like feudal China for instance, and you'll see an exponential growth in the amount of art. It's not just because the population is greater but because they were more efficient in providing the basic tools for survival for their communities. Simply put, they had more free time on their hands and since idle hands do the devil's work they made art.
Jump forward to today and you'll see a mind-boggling number of self-described artists. Art-collecting.com has a list of nearly 100 art galleries in Atlanta alone. That doesn't even count the number coffee shops, tea houses, tattoo and curio shops that sell art by original artists. And that's just for visual art. When you consider the number of musicians, writers, filmmakers, and theatrical artists this city has you can tell this is a town that doesn't concern itself with whether we our crops will yield enough food to feed our families. I'd argue that even if Georgia had no Arts Council, and unfortunately that decision is in the hands of politicians, you couldn't stop Atlanta from having a thriving artists' community.
So back to why artists suck. I'd think it would be obvious: we don't need 'em but they can't admit it. The most self-important artists think that they serve an integral role in the survival of their society and that they alone are commissioned to be the prophets of our times. Alan Moore will always on my list of favorite comic book writers but, frankly, I decided I didn't really like the guy when I read an interview with him in which he argued that artists are gifted with a special spiritual power to see the other realms of the universe. He can't simply say, "I'm more talented and thoughtful than many in my field" but instead suggests that his soul/mind has tapped into another magical universe and that he is some sort of vessel for other-worldly communication. Get a grip, Moore.
I often equate artistic arrogance to athletics. Athletes have skills that entertain and captivate large numbers of people. They perform well and receive the adulation of others. They are praised for their accomplishments and, quite understandably, they internalize this praise. But they often mistake the praise of their performance as praise for themselves as humans. Their coddling and revenue generation make them seem superhuman. I think the same thing can ring true for artists. Seriously, how many actors have you encountered that think they have a greater connection with their fellow human because they can convincingly pretend to be someone else? Or how many musicians have you known that have quit bands because they weren't getting the personal satisfaction they think they deserve as an artist?
I love art. I collect books and movies. I listen to a wide spectrum of music. I buy art when I can afford it. I even have art permanently tattooed into my body. When I write, whether it is a blog like this or a screenplay, I feel that I am making art. I'm trying to communicate a portion of myself and my worldview. I openly put my mind and thoughts out for the world to see and actually welcome the criticism and dialogue that comes from it. Just as I am willing to change my life and my opinions my art reflects that journey. And maybe this is my self-important arrogance shining through here, but I for one most certainly do not suck.
Best quote ever (though it only tangentially applies here): "Amateurs do it for the art. Professionals do it for the money."
ReplyDeleteStill, you gloss over some of the practical applications that have been inspired by art. To use cliched examples, check out da Vinci and even Star Trek. Many "artistic doodlings" let to scientific advances in, say, flight and telecommunications.
But, yeah, there's an arrogance to artists. Then again, there's an arrogance to every professional field.
To further your argument one need only look to the words of Albert Einstein:
ReplyDelete"I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."