An article written by William Deresiewicz for the Atlantic claims "The Death of the Artist--and the Birth of the Creative Entrepreneur". Through the article he takes his reader on a magical journey through the ages of different roles of artists and what they come back to is different relationships to income and criticism.
Patronage, Universities, and finally: the internet, networking, followers.
He sums up with this statement:
"When works of art become commodities and nothing else, when every endeavor becomes “creative” and everybody “a creative,” then art sinks back to craft and artists back to artisans—a word that, in its adjectival form, at least, is newly popular again. Artisanal pickles, artisanal poems: what’s the difference, after all? So “art” itself may disappear: art as Art, that old high thing. Which—unless, like me, you think we need a vessel for our inner life—is nothing much to mourn."
Ok. I have thoughts and feelings about this. Initially, as I began reading, I thought about how frustrating it is that as a theatre maker, an art maker, I have to learn, not only how to make my art, but also how to sell myself to people. Especially as an actor, needing to learn how to sell yourself to an Agent who will help you sell yourself to directors and casting agents, all before you get to actually do your art or your craft. While thinking this, I was with Mr. Deresiewicz. I was like,
"Yeah! The good old days when art was a craft that you pursued, and the good old days when artists rejected patrons to do their own work, and the good old days when we pursued art because we loved it. Before the wreckage of the university where we pay to be schooled out of art and love of art! Before the hollow capitalist myths said appeal to the lowest common denominator! Down with the patriarchy! Rah rah Art!"
I was very effusive.
Then I started to realize that his view of the internet age, which brings artists straight into contact with their patrons, was synonymous with breadth, therefore, a lack of depth. A lack of true engagement or interact with either the ideas, the art, or the consumer. And that's where I hopped off the bandwagon and started to look at it up close.
In the above quote, Mr. D finally shows his true sense "Art, that old high thing . . . a vessel for our inner life". Romantic, isn't it. It's like a flag, a grand old flag, a high flying flag. I digress into nationalist territory, but the point is that he is idealizing something. Specifically, "Art" as something incompatible with the internet age in which he charges that Artists trade 10,000 hours for 10,000 contacts (which he separates from collaborators or companions who enrich art).
As many problems as I have with the vastness of the internet, its legions of corporate bots and content, and even the void into which I sometimes feel my blog posts go to die, I fundamentally disagree with Mr. D's view of the internet as a solely capitalist force leeching the soul out of art!
I think this is not only a conversation about Art but also about how we view the internet and the difference between High Art and Low Art.
If Art is the vessel for the soul, we must ask who's soul? and how is it shared? Traditionally, the vessel for the soul is the body--unless you're having an out of body experience [which could arguably be a definition for great art], however, when we talk about art that moves us or speaks to us, we talk about an expression of something felt, experience, human that we see, hear, smell, feel outside of ourselves. This is what I think he means with "vessel for the soul". But then we get into question's of who's soul?
Whose soul is worthy to be expressed in art and how should it be expressed? In High Art/Low Art discussions this becomes important. Ie the masses don't know anything about art and therefore the art that they like can't properly be called "art". This takes many many shapes and forms, but it all has to do with separating the represented soul with value--some expressions are more valuable than others.
Here, I have a voice asking my head: "but isn't there good art and bad art? should there be a way to distinguish between truly phenomenal work and mediocre work? What objective measurements exist? Or are you saying they don't?" Tricky tricky, but related and important.--Good subject for another post, but I want to return to the internet and the way it shapes Art.
Specifically the charge that the internet sucks the depth out of art: Mr. D argues that the internet is all about the consumer "who is perforce always right"(D)--which means that in order to appeal to more consumers, the artist must diversify like a business, multiple art forms, multiple jobs, create an environment, create an experience. And all I hear is create, create, create, create, create! So much creation. He mourns the loss of 10,000 without realizing that the continued creation of content through multiple sources is part of that 10,000 hours. He mourns the loss of collaboration, when other artists, thinkers, and collaborators are more available to each other than they have ever been! I am able to reach out "contact" artists who's work I see on the internet and start conversations about art, life, the universe, and everything. The constant feedback of the "consumers" on the internet gives opportunities for instant information about how your art works, who it touches and how. The response from people interacting with your art is not a simplistic "make it my way". -->
"Make it My Way" is the corporate message sold by companies, universities, and institutions who are selling products, not art. They tell us that that should be the rallying cry of the consumer. They tell us that the consumer is a dumb beast who can only want and cry and whine because that's what they want the consumer to be. It's easy to sell to someone saying "GimmeGimmeIwantOohShiny!"
If you buy that lie, then of course "Art is Dead." In fact, so is culture, society, and humanity.
Bottom line is, I want to call to Mr. D across this vasty internet sea, that there are those of us fighting, arting, and spending hours to make connections and sending vessels across the internet sea containing our souls. I want to challenge him to look for us and find us connecting, crafting our art with love, filling it with life, and sharing it not only in person but also through the internet.
Patronage, Universities, and finally: the internet, networking, followers.
He sums up with this statement:
"When works of art become commodities and nothing else, when every endeavor becomes “creative” and everybody “a creative,” then art sinks back to craft and artists back to artisans—a word that, in its adjectival form, at least, is newly popular again. Artisanal pickles, artisanal poems: what’s the difference, after all? So “art” itself may disappear: art as Art, that old high thing. Which—unless, like me, you think we need a vessel for our inner life—is nothing much to mourn."
Ok. I have thoughts and feelings about this. Initially, as I began reading, I thought about how frustrating it is that as a theatre maker, an art maker, I have to learn, not only how to make my art, but also how to sell myself to people. Especially as an actor, needing to learn how to sell yourself to an Agent who will help you sell yourself to directors and casting agents, all before you get to actually do your art or your craft. While thinking this, I was with Mr. Deresiewicz. I was like,
"Yeah! The good old days when art was a craft that you pursued, and the good old days when artists rejected patrons to do their own work, and the good old days when we pursued art because we loved it. Before the wreckage of the university where we pay to be schooled out of art and love of art! Before the hollow capitalist myths said appeal to the lowest common denominator! Down with the patriarchy! Rah rah Art!"
I was very effusive.
Then I started to realize that his view of the internet age, which brings artists straight into contact with their patrons, was synonymous with breadth, therefore, a lack of depth. A lack of true engagement or interact with either the ideas, the art, or the consumer. And that's where I hopped off the bandwagon and started to look at it up close.
In the above quote, Mr. D finally shows his true sense "Art, that old high thing . . . a vessel for our inner life". Romantic, isn't it. It's like a flag, a grand old flag, a high flying flag. I digress into nationalist territory, but the point is that he is idealizing something. Specifically, "Art" as something incompatible with the internet age in which he charges that Artists trade 10,000 hours for 10,000 contacts (which he separates from collaborators or companions who enrich art).
As many problems as I have with the vastness of the internet, its legions of corporate bots and content, and even the void into which I sometimes feel my blog posts go to die, I fundamentally disagree with Mr. D's view of the internet as a solely capitalist force leeching the soul out of art!
I think this is not only a conversation about Art but also about how we view the internet and the difference between High Art and Low Art.
If Art is the vessel for the soul, we must ask who's soul? and how is it shared? Traditionally, the vessel for the soul is the body--unless you're having an out of body experience [which could arguably be a definition for great art], however, when we talk about art that moves us or speaks to us, we talk about an expression of something felt, experience, human that we see, hear, smell, feel outside of ourselves. This is what I think he means with "vessel for the soul". But then we get into question's of who's soul?
Whose soul is worthy to be expressed in art and how should it be expressed? In High Art/Low Art discussions this becomes important. Ie the masses don't know anything about art and therefore the art that they like can't properly be called "art". This takes many many shapes and forms, but it all has to do with separating the represented soul with value--some expressions are more valuable than others.
Here, I have a voice asking my head: "but isn't there good art and bad art? should there be a way to distinguish between truly phenomenal work and mediocre work? What objective measurements exist? Or are you saying they don't?" Tricky tricky, but related and important.--Good subject for another post, but I want to return to the internet and the way it shapes Art.
Specifically the charge that the internet sucks the depth out of art: Mr. D argues that the internet is all about the consumer "who is perforce always right"(D)--which means that in order to appeal to more consumers, the artist must diversify like a business, multiple art forms, multiple jobs, create an environment, create an experience. And all I hear is create, create, create, create, create! So much creation. He mourns the loss of 10,000 without realizing that the continued creation of content through multiple sources is part of that 10,000 hours. He mourns the loss of collaboration, when other artists, thinkers, and collaborators are more available to each other than they have ever been! I am able to reach out "contact" artists who's work I see on the internet and start conversations about art, life, the universe, and everything. The constant feedback of the "consumers" on the internet gives opportunities for instant information about how your art works, who it touches and how. The response from people interacting with your art is not a simplistic "make it my way". -->
"Make it My Way" is the corporate message sold by companies, universities, and institutions who are selling products, not art. They tell us that that should be the rallying cry of the consumer. They tell us that the consumer is a dumb beast who can only want and cry and whine because that's what they want the consumer to be. It's easy to sell to someone saying "GimmeGimmeIwantOohShiny!"
If you buy that lie, then of course "Art is Dead." In fact, so is culture, society, and humanity.
Bottom line is, I want to call to Mr. D across this vasty internet sea, that there are those of us fighting, arting, and spending hours to make connections and sending vessels across the internet sea containing our souls. I want to challenge him to look for us and find us connecting, crafting our art with love, filling it with life, and sharing it not only in person but also through the internet.
No comments:
Post a Comment