i guess anyone can read this so im gonna use a bit more discretion than i use when i write things for myself.
i mostly want to use this blorg not as a diary, but more as a monologue to incite dialogue.
the cool thing about the internet is anyone can access anything (unless you want pronz in china) the other cool thing is you can say/view whatever you want (except CP. if you dont know what CP stands for, then that is a good sign. you havent been exposed to enough internets)
i have many ideas about how to best use the internet. in fact, my long-term goal for my life pretty much centers around the idea of contacting people through the internet.
i know this sounds weird and pathetic, like i am going to just be on myface and spacebook all day. what i mean is that like most artistically-minded people, i want to express myself in many ways.
i define "Art" or "art" or art as anything people create with the intent of expression. so when you post twitter posts, or update your facebook status, or decide what color shoes to wear, or even talk to someone with the intent of expressing yourself, you are making art. you are an artist.
so the next time someone brags to you about being an artist, tell them they arent special. then they will have something to write their sad poetry or indie folk songs about. im not saying that sad poetry and indie folk are bad, sad poetry can be good and indie folk rock can be good, just as much as any other form of art. but just because something is art, doesnt mean its good.
art exists so people have something to talk about other than the weather. i think the reason we talk so much about the weather is because it is such a complex thing to understand. it has to do with air turbulence, ocean currents, atmospheric pressure as well as many huge (literally) ideas that take some time and metaphor to grasp.
the other reason is that it changes from day to day. the weather is interesting to discuss with anyone any day for about 30 seconds.
those 30 seconds seem so meaningless to many of us. we see "small talk" as this sort of necessity, when it really is just a social tool. its sort of like when a dog sniffs another dog's ass. however, ass sniffing as well as ass kissing might be the two most valuable skills you have to get ahead in the world. at least thats what we're taught...
ass kissing is all fine and dandy and so is ass sniffing, as long as deep down inside, you know who you are. most people walk around everyday not knowing how their own ass smells.
a lot of people use art as a sort of mirror to figure out who they are. it is a valuable tool for this. i think everyone starts as an artist this way, even at a very young age. children who carry around a specific toy or belonging are in a way doing the same thing that duchamp did with his "fountain" . Duchamp's fountain may be one of my favorite pieces of art of all time. It literally embodies my whole view of art and accomplishes nothing else. he defined art more so than any other writer ever could. he may have been a chaos-obsessing dadaist, but sometimes the best realizations come out of chaos.
i also love chaos, by the way. like duchamp, i also value the idea as above the object. if you disagree, i would love to discuss this opinion with you.
but i digress...
art exists first to identify ourselves, but later it becomes a means of communication. the highest form of art is that which communicates the best. (again if you disagree, please point out flaws in my argument, after all, it is an argument, not a scientific thesis)
the way i arrived at this conclusion was through the study of an instrument. every instrumentalist that i talk to all seem to have the ultimate goal of "saying" whatever they want with their instrument. their instrument is to exist as an extension of their brain. just like your hand reaches for something without you consciously telling your muscles to move, an instrumentalist wants their instrument to be able to play with as little physical or mental effort as possible.
i really think that this is true of all art. you learn your tools, you master your skills, play your rudiments and scales, learn your color theory, your harmony, learn how to mix certain kinds of clay, paint, or channels on a console. you learn to tie your shoes, you learn to brush your teeth, you learn to write. you learn to use the internet. you learn to speak. you learn to do a lot of things, but these things are all tools. tools for you to express yourself. tools for you to get to know who You really are. (intentional upper-case)
a skilled artist is one who masters these things to the best of their ability.
ok you have done that.
but why?
well michelangelo didnt even consider himself a painter. what an asshole. he considered himself a sculptor first.
he was a master in every sense of the way, but it was his endless curiosity and insatiable hunger to communicate that drove him to create in every way. (note i said create and not express. this is my point)
to be like God, mankind needs to create. this is the first encounter we had with God as a species, our inception. our creation.
i mean this in an artistic, non-religious context, for those of you easily offended by religion. if you are offended by religion, or anything that people believe, you are wasting your time in life. another discussion to have later...
first expressing, then creating. i think a pretty good way of looking at things.
the reason i starting this blogging thing today is to practice writing. i dont care how many people read it at first because i am approaching this as the way one approaches a college education. expressing and creation are not the goal, familiarizing oneself with one's tools are the goals. to become a master before you become a creator.
not to say that expressing or even creating can be a useful byproduct of an education. (behold my masterpiece I completed while in college, my college thesis if you will...)
did i get you to visit my site? this is another thing i am learning as an artist. everything i do, i approach with the intent of becoming a better artist. this may sound pretentious, but if you replace the word "artist" with the word "human," perhaps you will get a better idea.
i think human and artist should be synonyms. = one of my life goals
* * *
i dont know, have i made my point yet? if i havent, feel free to ask me questions via any social networking site. i am making a point not to edit myself too much. i honestly havent read this from the beginning before posting. it is a test of whether or not i can write from my brain to the paper without removing myself from myself, similar to the way Mozart wrote music. it was in his head before he "copied" it down on to paper.
you will notice that i make many music references. one of the main things i will use this blog for is for posting links to things i find interesting on the internet. those of you who dont like to hear people's opinions or read things like this should just click on the links and enjoy them out of context. many links i will post out of context anyway.
such as this one. i never liked this song until i saw the video. if someone can tell me why, i think it might reveal something about myself to myself.
Posts
I think that having a blog is admirable... writing as often as possible no matter what it's about can be incredibly helpful as an artist/human.
ReplyDeleteI find that what you wrote was entertaining and i mostly would agree except for one thing, that there is "good art and bad art." Obviously I and everyone else on the planet has called something good or bad but the bottom line is that when it comes to art and judgment of anything it is based on a highly individual level. People perceive things in different ways according to their background, culture, conditioning etc. Whether something is beautiful or pleasing to the eye, ears, mouth, nose just isn't black and white. Its purely subjective.
I also would argue that expression does not equal art. Creation equals art. We express ourselves through art therefore through creation. You have to draw the line somewhere. For instance: a person can consider murdering someone expression and then call it art. But is it?
Interesting stuff.
As for the link you posted.. listening to that song, doesn't make you think very much its old and pretty simple in its content. But when you watch the video it gives it a new level of meaning.. Not to mention anything annie lennox does has some sort of message behind it, and the video gives it to us more clearly. ?? maybe thats it.
yeah youre completely right about good or bad art being subjective. i would argue however, within the area of subjectivity lies an infinite number of personal sets of objective values. i personally may think something is the greatest thing ever, and i can argue that it is the greatest thing ever, but that will never make it the greatest thing ever to everyone. my argument, depending on how well it holds up, is my objectivity.
ReplyDeletei dont draw a line with art. i am a musician, not a painter; i dont draw lines, i play music (har har.) however in all seriousness, i would say that many murderers would consider themselves artists in their own way and they are correct in their art, according to their set of (albeit fucked up) values. if you kill someone you do not value human life as a whole. that act in itself is expressing quite a bit. as a murderer, you value your life maybe, but not the lives of others. values are what is key here.
i like to speak in absolutes whenever possible (in case you havent noticed), but i am open minded enough to understand that subjectivity exists. subjectivity in fact, is what makes art what it is. human subjectivity and individualism.
as far as murder goes, society sees the murderer as wrong and guilty of the highest crime, but the murderer (if he is an unrepentant one) sees himself as justified in his own eyes, by his own set of messed up values.
like i said before, i am a bad writer, but i have many ideas. some of them are random and absurd, such as the video i posted. speaking of absurdity, you should check out Duchamp and his toilet. also dadaism. he is the reason i think the way i do about art.
thanks for responding!
First off, awesome first (second?) post Ben- your writing is a lot more accessible, and your ideas are still intact. Still some work to do, but this is a great start. Maybe take some time, and focus on form as a writer, the same way you do about music. You have all the tools, applying them here might be helpful.
ReplyDeleteI know we've talked about a lot of these things at length already; you know most of my responses, so I don't really need to write all of them down.
You're right to say that art's purpose changes, for both an individual artist, and a society as a whole. Cave drawings, oral/aural folkloric traditions, even medieval and renaissance art all existed as means of identification, establishing a tangible manifestation of both the physical you and universal You (intentional capitalization :)).
As we evolve (physically and mentally), so do the vehicles of our expression. The expository value of art (creation stories, depictions of historic battles, family portraits, etc.) becomes more abstract as we begin to understand ourselves and others in more complex ways. Early man could not have arrived at Michealangelo's Cistene chapel, nor could Michaelangelo (brilliant as he was) have arrived at Picasso's blue period, or Duchamp's Fountain. None of these periods are more or less important, they all arrived according to the needs and understandings of humanity. The development and mastery of technique is also hugely important, but you've/we've already established that.
I agree that art existed first to identify, then to communicate, but I would qualify the statement. These two purposes are hopelessly involved now, to the point that our identity in art is derived from the ideas and we communicate; we learn something about ourselves based on our reactions to art. This isn't very clear, maybe you can help me understand what I'm trying to say, haha.
(tangent: for some reason, i completely disassociated him from the toilet thing; I always think of him as the "Je ne c'est un pipe" artist. that's why we had a hard time remembering his name before).
(Tangent two: I absolutely agree that, ultimately, value,to both creator and recipient (or however you think of this), constitutes art.)
There are at least four elements Universal to humans (that I can come up with, add or disqualify what doesn't work). Culture, tools, and emotions/emotional expression are the first three, and are relatively self-explanatory. symbolic language is the fourth. Language is also a tool of course, but Language itself is inextricable from humanity, unlike all other tools. its use in expressing abstractions and "moods" (i.e. subjunctive), is also unique to humans.
Art, for all intents and purposes, is the collected embodiment of these essential elements. A product of a very simple, uniquely human process:
Conception of Idea (Form)
Realization/communication of Idea
Realization/communication of reactions to the Idea.
Any thoughts?
I know this is getting a bit redundant, but I think the above criteria are what make art so unique- and so valuable- to human beings.
You'll have to forgive my rambling, I didn't get a whole lot of sleep last night. It's better this than a phone call, though.
PS I have a theory about annie lennox.
"Cave drawings, oral/aural folkloric traditions, even medieval and renaissance art all existed as means of identification, establishing a tangible manifestation of both the physical you and universal You (intentional capitalization :)). "
ReplyDelete-should refer to it as the YOU-niverse.
"I agree that art existed first to identify, then to communicate, but I would qualify the statement. These two purposes are hopelessly involved now, to the point that our identity in art is derived from the ideas and we communicate; we learn something about ourselves based on our reactions to art. This isn't very clear, maybe you can help me understand what I'm trying to say, haha."
i agree. both in the process of creating art and in participating it it, art acts like a mirror. when you create it, you see yourself because you are putting you into it. when you view it, you see someone else in the mirror at first, but our human empathetic instinct is to superimpose ourselves onto that image of the other person.
i am probably making it muddier.
"I absolutely agree that, ultimately, value,to both creator and recipient (or however you think of this), constitutes art."
i would change this to say "ultimately, value,to EITHER creator OR recipient (or however you think of this), constitutes art." i think this separates the two individuals' experience. although their experience may be a shared one, the writer must separate them in order to show that value needs only to be held by one party.
"
There are at least four elements Universal to humans (that I can come up with, add or disqualify what doesn't work). Culture, tools, and emotions/emotional expression are the first three, and are relatively self-explanatory. symbolic language is the fourth. Language is also a tool of course, but Language itself is inextricable from humanity, unlike all other tools. its use in expressing abstractions and "moods" (i.e. subjunctive), is also unique to humans.
Art, for all intents and purposes, is the collected embodiment of these essential elements. A product of a very simple, uniquely human process:
Conception of Idea (Form)
Realization/communication of Idea
Realization/communication of reactions to the Idea.
Any thoughts?"
hmm perhaps this will be another blog post...