On being an artist
Massey writes eloquently and thoughtfully about being an artist. I concur with his feeling of frustration that there is a category called "artist", just as I find the fact that we can call people "spiritual" or "intellectual" - in opposition, presumably, to those who are not - to be quite disturbing. It seems good that there are some words that imply their opposition - "sadist", "misanthrope", "Republican" - but when words that are part of our fundamental human condition are seen as so doing, a deep flaw in our societal perspective is revealed. How can one not be aware of one's spirit or one's intellect? How can one not explore those essential aspects of our humanity?
And how can one not make art, the physical manifestation of that exploration? I have thought about this issue in terms of organic systems, where there is a perpetual flow of energy and matter between different elements. As in, we are made up of molecules that were once part of trees, animals, rocks, the ocean, etc., and elements of what was once "ours" are now out in the world, as parts of trees, animals, rocks, the ocean. To not make art seems to be, in a sense, anal-retentitive, hoarding one's treasure, attempting to stay outside the system. Or, consider those who are against wealth distribution (or "Socialism"), emphasizing the primacy of the individual over the Social, as if the two were mutually exclusive. Art explodes that distinction. Art is simultaneously individual and social. It is made by people, by individuals, even if they are collaborating (as they often are) or inspired by prior work (as they always are). But it makes no sense to conceive of art apart from the Social realm; as much as we may write or paint or dance for ourselves, we are projecting our inner qualities and reflections to the outside world.
We take in food and sun and water and oxygen and what do we give out? Shit and urine and sweat and CO2, and then the farms, cities, highways, totems, bridges, trash, pants, everything we have made - these are the products of our work. Too many products. But what else? We also play games and run around and make art (and yes, make love) - these are our non-destructive, non-constructive actions. They are not "for" anything, other than being, perhaps, the thing itself, the Copernican center around which all the other things, the thing-things, revolve, or ought to.
So who, then, becomes "an artist" and who does not? Let's set aside the vocational issue; Massey was no less an artist when he was drawing his paycheck from Some Corporation than he will be when he's drawing it from Some University, or perhaps eventually Some Record Sales or Some Wealthy Patron or Some Lottery. It might be a good thing to find ways to devote more time to one's art, but that's mostly beside the point. What examining the vocational issue reveals is that there are many artists who are not thought of as such by the IRS or by their neighbors or by History, people whose daily lives are infused with creative expression in many realms. Massey alluded to this.
Do we know, then, who the artists really are? I think of people as either Artistic or Not, and it has nothing to do with their income, but with the way that they interact with the world. The people I understand least are the people who feel like they have nothing to do, nothing to interest them. This is the opposite of my problem. It is hard to live because there is so much to do. Even, to take a glum example, the fear of death, a fear I don't think of myself as having but seem to have picked up, hardcore, along the way somewhere, this fear seems to me to be largely about not doing the things that are there to be done. I want my life to be as full as it can be, and that seems to me to be an Artistic way of living. I see the world in terms of the potential experiences it holds, so much so that I need to create new experiences for myself, the ones I really want; I'm not satisfied with those that are given by circumstance. So I write string quartets and songs and beats and whatever, I make things up, I jest. There are other things that could be done; these are the places where my needs are strongest.
The bottom line for me is that people actually should be Artists. Everyone. I'm not beyond making a proscriptive claim. It is Bad for the World that people are not expressing themselves, because it has helped to create and feed the hyper-rational society in which we live, a society that makes up rules and then follows them off the cliff. If you're constantly questioning the rules then you can actually adapt the system when it's broken, which it is. But who is fixing it? It will take the artists to do this, people who can actually see outside of the system because they never believed in it in the first place. Artists do not trust what is called "rational" because we know that there are multiple ways of seeing everything. Otherwise, how could we have done what we just did? That thing I just wrote, how could that exist, except if there is room for me to make something up? And if I can, then you can, and then what is stable? Yes, there are things that are the same, but there are always also things that are different, and both are changing, and this is good and this is what makes things alive.
If we want our society to be alive, we need everyone to get up and do that thing that they want to do. Not the thing they are supposed to do, or the thing they have been made to think they want to do - the thing they really want to do. If I have Faith in anything, and I do, it's a Faith that what that thing is, for almost everyone, will be something that is not just not harmful, but constructive. So we should all do that thing, That's all it takes. Stop reading this and go do it. I'm going to go finish that piece I've been working on....right....now.
And how can one not make art, the physical manifestation of that exploration? I have thought about this issue in terms of organic systems, where there is a perpetual flow of energy and matter between different elements. As in, we are made up of molecules that were once part of trees, animals, rocks, the ocean, etc., and elements of what was once "ours" are now out in the world, as parts of trees, animals, rocks, the ocean. To not make art seems to be, in a sense, anal-retentitive, hoarding one's treasure, attempting to stay outside the system. Or, consider those who are against wealth distribution (or "Socialism"), emphasizing the primacy of the individual over the Social, as if the two were mutually exclusive. Art explodes that distinction. Art is simultaneously individual and social. It is made by people, by individuals, even if they are collaborating (as they often are) or inspired by prior work (as they always are). But it makes no sense to conceive of art apart from the Social realm; as much as we may write or paint or dance for ourselves, we are projecting our inner qualities and reflections to the outside world.
We take in food and sun and water and oxygen and what do we give out? Shit and urine and sweat and CO2, and then the farms, cities, highways, totems, bridges, trash, pants, everything we have made - these are the products of our work. Too many products. But what else? We also play games and run around and make art (and yes, make love) - these are our non-destructive, non-constructive actions. They are not "for" anything, other than being, perhaps, the thing itself, the Copernican center around which all the other things, the thing-things, revolve, or ought to.
So who, then, becomes "an artist" and who does not? Let's set aside the vocational issue; Massey was no less an artist when he was drawing his paycheck from Some Corporation than he will be when he's drawing it from Some University, or perhaps eventually Some Record Sales or Some Wealthy Patron or Some Lottery. It might be a good thing to find ways to devote more time to one's art, but that's mostly beside the point. What examining the vocational issue reveals is that there are many artists who are not thought of as such by the IRS or by their neighbors or by History, people whose daily lives are infused with creative expression in many realms. Massey alluded to this.
Do we know, then, who the artists really are? I think of people as either Artistic or Not, and it has nothing to do with their income, but with the way that they interact with the world. The people I understand least are the people who feel like they have nothing to do, nothing to interest them. This is the opposite of my problem. It is hard to live because there is so much to do. Even, to take a glum example, the fear of death, a fear I don't think of myself as having but seem to have picked up, hardcore, along the way somewhere, this fear seems to me to be largely about not doing the things that are there to be done. I want my life to be as full as it can be, and that seems to me to be an Artistic way of living. I see the world in terms of the potential experiences it holds, so much so that I need to create new experiences for myself, the ones I really want; I'm not satisfied with those that are given by circumstance. So I write string quartets and songs and beats and whatever, I make things up, I jest. There are other things that could be done; these are the places where my needs are strongest.
The bottom line for me is that people actually should be Artists. Everyone. I'm not beyond making a proscriptive claim. It is Bad for the World that people are not expressing themselves, because it has helped to create and feed the hyper-rational society in which we live, a society that makes up rules and then follows them off the cliff. If you're constantly questioning the rules then you can actually adapt the system when it's broken, which it is. But who is fixing it? It will take the artists to do this, people who can actually see outside of the system because they never believed in it in the first place. Artists do not trust what is called "rational" because we know that there are multiple ways of seeing everything. Otherwise, how could we have done what we just did? That thing I just wrote, how could that exist, except if there is room for me to make something up? And if I can, then you can, and then what is stable? Yes, there are things that are the same, but there are always also things that are different, and both are changing, and this is good and this is what makes things alive.
If we want our society to be alive, we need everyone to get up and do that thing that they want to do. Not the thing they are supposed to do, or the thing they have been made to think they want to do - the thing they really want to do. If I have Faith in anything, and I do, it's a Faith that what that thing is, for almost everyone, will be something that is not just not harmful, but constructive. So we should all do that thing, That's all it takes. Stop reading this and go do it. I'm going to go finish that piece I've been working on....right....now.
posted by Judd at
12:03:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home