Post from January, 2024

Continued Artistic Relevance

Sunday, 28. January 2024 20:10

A large number of people swear that when they go back and re-read Richard Bach’s Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah, it’s a different book; it has different things to say; there are things in it that the reader has not seen before. This is a phenomenon that is not limited to Illusions; rather, it happens with almost any work that manages to stay relevant over time, or “hold up,” as some would say.

Composer and pianist Philip Glass has noticed the same phenomenon with regards to pieces of music, although he does not believe that the pieces have changed. Instead he believes that other things have changed and that change impacts the music: “What I found most interesting in coming back to many of these pieces is that something has changed. The music remains the same but I have changed, the world has changed, the way people hear, including myself, has changed. That change, or metamorphosis, is what interests me.”

It seems that there three ways to classify works of art over time: (1) there are those that “hold up,” that is, they continue to speak to their audiences, although, as noted above, some things seem to change or parts that were of lesser importance early on are now very important. (2) There are also those works that do not hold up without help, that is to say they lose their relevance and have to be made relevant to interest a “modern” audience. This often happens with musical theatre revivals, perhaps because musical theatre is so topical and temporal. This also happens with other types of works as well, often comedies—for the same reasons. (3)Then there are works that lose their relevance entirely as time passes. This is usually work that is tightly tied to temporal and topical aspects of the era in which it was created. There is very little way that such a work can resonate with an audience not of its time except as a cultural curiosity.

And while Glass is interested in the change itself, others are concerned what it is that makes a work continue to stay relevant to an audience over time, even though the specifics of what parts of the work actually speak to the audience may change. Certainly, a study of all types of art could be done to isolate those qualities that cause a work to remain relevant even though the audience may go through decades of cultural change, but the result would likely be a rather dry academic work that would say that those works that present problems and conditions that are universally human are the ones that will remain relevant. This, however, would be of little use to the working artist, because we all know that if we make our work too universal, it will not gain traction with the current audience and thus have no current relevance, much less relevance to future audience members.

The best solution is, I think, to forget future relevance. We need to make our work relevant to our current audience; we need to allow it to touch on universally human characteristics. Beyond that, we need only to strive to make it the best it can be. Whether it is relevant in the future is really up to future publishers, producers, and audiences. We need to worry less about some nebulous legacy and more about the art we create and its impact on its immediate audience.

Category:Audience | Comment (0) | Author:

Own Your Art

Sunday, 14. January 2024 23:18

There are a number of artists who are very much interested in keeping themselves out of their art. Instead of investing themselves, they develop a craft outside themselves to produce their product. That, of course, is one way to make art. Whether one makes the best art one can make, or even authentic art by that method is another question completely.

If one examines the work of acknowledged masters across all arts, one finds that most superior art is created by those who put themselves into their work. Consider the work of Tennessee Williams, Edward Hopper, Ansel Adams, Tony Kushner, Ernest Hemingway, Michelangelo, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Bob Fosse. Close examination of the work of these artists reveals that they created work from their own psyches, and that work is far superior to the work of artists who put less of themselves into their work. Moreover, because they invested so much of themselves into their work, they did not have to work at developing a style; rather, it came naturally because it was integral to the artist. The work of these and other-such individuals is immediately recognizable because of that integral style.

Not that we want to copy these masters, but we would do well to emulate their approach to creation. We would do better to create from our souls and own that creation rather than trying to make art that will appeal to the masses or generate a following. As the person on Threads who goes by the handle illitica1 says:

Too worried about
What will attract the masses
What will sell
Instead of opening the heart
Releasing the soul
The gift of creativity
Pen to paper
Stop trying to make it perfect
Let it be
What it is
Raw & uncut

Two likes. Shit that’s fine. If you doing what you love, everything will work out in time.
Just do.
Stop comparing. Hype yourself up.

If we aren’t already, we need to stop hiding who we are and pretending our art is not a part of us, or rather that we are not a part of our art. We need to first accept who we are, then acknowledge that who we are informs our art. We have things to say; we need to say them and not worry about the likes or retweets or follows or any of that other stuff. If what we make resonates with others, they will let us and others know. And soon there will be a tribe supporting our work. And if not, we still will have had the joy of creating—and knowing that our work is authentic and comes from deep inside. Our work will matter, if not to anyone else, to us.

Some theorists advise that we create according to what we know. Rather we should create from who we are, and be willing to own what we create. Our relationship to our work will be easier and our work will be the better for it.

Category:Creativity | Comment (0) | Author: