“I can't remember the exact quote but I think it was da Vinci who said artists HAVE to be arrogant about their art. Otherwise how would they ever be able to do the things they do? Hmmm...maybe it wasn’t da Vinci but it’s still true”
– Anonymous Friend...after one too many...
My friend and I have a long-standing debate: He takes the position that the purpose of Art is to enact change. I hold strong, however, to the belief that Art HAS no intrinsic purpose; or no intrinsic value for that matter! Much like everything else we experience through life, meaning and value come from our interpretation.
Interpretation. Not Intention.
I submit to you that art is not whole—not complete, not art—until it gets observed, rendered and deciphered into someone’s psyche.
In other words, if someone paints a picture of a tree falling in the woods…
And as for the quote above, I hates to disagree with da Vinci…but…
The danger in arrogance in art is that it leads to elitism and that restriction…the taking the audience out of the equation is the true enemy of expression.
Art, for everyone’s posturing and delusions of grandeur, is a SERVICE industry. It’s wonderful (not) that we’ve turned our celebrities into demigods but at its crux art is giving a gift. Sharing an experience. And all this stuff about making a difference in the world and changing things is a by-product that comes from this gift.
Can art change the world? Absolutely. Can an artist set out to change the world? Absolutely. Is it a fool’s errand to try to change the world through art? A.B.S.O.L.U.T.E.L.Y.
How it works: Something happens. To ME. And it affects me; makes me happy, sad, pissed, anxious, horny. I decide I simply MUST communicate this to somebody. So I filter that experience though the medium of my choice (paint, music, prose, film, interpretive dance, whatever) and release it into the world. YOU receive this, unfold it and interpret it based on your experiences, beliefs and yearnings; and simply does not matter if your interpretation agrees with my intention!
You can’t control what someone does with a gift.
Just ask Oliver Stone.
Stone meant Wall Street to be a scathing indictment of the Brokers and greed and a wake up call to America and accidentally ended up inspiring a whole generation of Gordon Gekko wannabes!
And to extend what I’ve been talking about to the next level: If all art has no intrinsic value then all art is basically equal. Everyone who creates art is equal. It’s society that gets the final say as to whether it’s changing the world or if it’s full of shit. This means (since you can’t control society) that the act of creation is the only thing that the artist can control and is therefore the only thing that matters.
Art, truly, is in the doing.
Now, where I’m a big fat hypocrite on this is that I’m just as guilty as the next guy…probably more so…of questioning someone’s right to be an artist: why does he get to make a movie, oh she socks, wah wah wah. And that is a behavior that I’d really like to squelch in myself…stop the hatin’ if you will.
And the argument I hear a’coming is this: Are you saying that Humans cannot enact change? What about Ghandi? What about MLK?
Well of course humans can enact change. On an even more base level:
You alive. I shoot. You dead.
Change!
But I’m not talking about Humans. I’m talking about Art.
An Artist can in NO way DICTATE what form inspiration will take.
Meaning is in the domain of the audience.
I am not saying I don’t CARE if an audience “gets it”. I’m expanding my circle of awareness to accept the very real possibility that an audience may “get it” in a way that I could never have conceived.
And THAT, is what is so fucking great about ART !!!
It’s when we get into the realm of “well if you don’t see it the way I wanted you to see it, then you are stupid or unenlightened” that we start getting into elitism and (in my opinion) masturbation. Demanding that someone interpret your art in a specific way is a) impossible, b) limiting and c) missing the point of truly great art (and no I’m not saying that I have made truly great art…yet?)
So yes….I do hope that someone will listen… I just don’t worry about WHAT they take away from it WHILE I’m creating. I mentioned the Wall Street example but think about Waiting for Godot…someone might see that and go, “Wow, that is a wonderful exploration of faith” Someone else might go “wow, what a cynical take on the futility of life” Is one of those people WRONG? Does it matter to either one of them what BECKETT’s reason for writing the play was?
No one cares if YOU have a personal moment only if THEY have a personal moment.