Art
I was thinking about the nature of art and I now realize that everything is correct and incorrect. People talk about how finding your own voice and whatnot, but I don't think many really want to. I think the goal for most is to find a voice that is able to find an audience, or better yet, to be compared to people one admires. But I've come to realize the goal in art isn't the search for truth and honesty in the traditional sense of the words. I mean you can argue that truth and honesty lie in stating that the sky is blue or a flower is purple. Which is true. But it's a scientific truth. It is a fact that can be expressed in the language of science and math. But if science and math can articulate these things in a way that probably more precise than any langauge we currently use, why should we do that? I don't think we should. The bigger goal or ideal should be to strive for some truth about humans or the human condition. Now I know this isn't an original thought, if you will. But the idea should be applied to the arts completely. That is what we need to strive for. I mean we are at a point where we need to totally reevaluate the arts and look for a new place to go. Are we going to be held hostage to the revolution of apathy, to the revolution of crap and mediocrity? I stand here and say NOOOOOO! This cannot happen because we as a group of people need to look at ourselves right in the mirror I mean truly look at ourselves and be honest with one another. I don't mean in some happy way that disregards all the crappy things we do or the crappy things we have become. What I mean is that we need to look at ourselves in a way that sees all the crap that we are, have been and will be. We need to look at it and accept it as a part of the human conditon and see the true beauty of life. The fact that we can have moments of crappiness, where we as a race can be horrible, but that we also can use art to be the ultimate form of love and life. It can point a mirror at ourselves and in that act it becomes the ultimate form of love. Because it is an act that seeks to reform. And in that reformation we as a human race become better, only if we can look at the piece of art with an open mind.
This is why each individual has to seek out his or her own voice. I mean syntax, volume and thoughts. I cannot look at society and think that we have become a society of morons. Each of us speaks in a way that can be beautiful. The beauty lies in our experience, perception and synthesis of our life experiences.
Oh so how this all releates back to everything being right and wrong in art: I was thinking of the ideas of Eisenstein and Renoir. The long take versus montage. Both are correct in their view of how a film should be. The reaosn being that each used tecnique as a part of their own unique voice. Can one imagine Eisenstein using extremely long takes? No, cause it would not have allowed for his total control of form. Could Renoir have used montage and expressed what he did? Again, no because he was expressing something about the nature of life and time that cannot be conveyed in short montage. It is the same in lit and I think of all the other arts. Take a run on sentance or concise sentances. They both serves a purpose in flow, mood and readability. And they are both correct if they serve to enhance the writer's voice as opposed to stiffle it. This is not to say that one should just write in run on sentances because they do not know how to write or end a sentance. This is to say that as an artist, one has the responsibiilty to fully learn and comprehend one's technique to the point that they are fully consious they are using a run on sentance. Now the obvious argument you can use against this thinking is the Henry Fool argument. What about natural talent? What about a person like the Simon character? Why does he need to do these things because he has a natuaral voice and is considered a good writer. The obvious answer is because it increases one's range to express ideas and try new things if he or she learns technique. One needs to be faitful to the idea they have in their heads while at the same time being honest enough to know how to best represent that idea be it on canvas, the written page or celluloid.
I guess ultimately art is not about ideas so much as it is about commitment to those ideas and to see one's ideas to fruition. It is only then that a dialog can truly continue through the ages.
Well I just thought of the obvious argument now against my idea about seeing ideas to fruition. The argument is that what if you have so many ideas. Kind of like Ramanujan in math. What does one do then? Does he or she take the time to develop only a few of those ideas. Or should that person crank out lots of work of varying quality? I guess the answer there lies in how commited the artist is to the ideas that they are preseneting. I guess we can call this the Godard connundrum or art. But at least ideas are being shared and I think ultimatly that is what needs to happen.
But I guess it's just a thought.
This is why each individual has to seek out his or her own voice. I mean syntax, volume and thoughts. I cannot look at society and think that we have become a society of morons. Each of us speaks in a way that can be beautiful. The beauty lies in our experience, perception and synthesis of our life experiences.
Oh so how this all releates back to everything being right and wrong in art: I was thinking of the ideas of Eisenstein and Renoir. The long take versus montage. Both are correct in their view of how a film should be. The reaosn being that each used tecnique as a part of their own unique voice. Can one imagine Eisenstein using extremely long takes? No, cause it would not have allowed for his total control of form. Could Renoir have used montage and expressed what he did? Again, no because he was expressing something about the nature of life and time that cannot be conveyed in short montage. It is the same in lit and I think of all the other arts. Take a run on sentance or concise sentances. They both serves a purpose in flow, mood and readability. And they are both correct if they serve to enhance the writer's voice as opposed to stiffle it. This is not to say that one should just write in run on sentances because they do not know how to write or end a sentance. This is to say that as an artist, one has the responsibiilty to fully learn and comprehend one's technique to the point that they are fully consious they are using a run on sentance. Now the obvious argument you can use against this thinking is the Henry Fool argument. What about natural talent? What about a person like the Simon character? Why does he need to do these things because he has a natuaral voice and is considered a good writer. The obvious answer is because it increases one's range to express ideas and try new things if he or she learns technique. One needs to be faitful to the idea they have in their heads while at the same time being honest enough to know how to best represent that idea be it on canvas, the written page or celluloid.
I guess ultimately art is not about ideas so much as it is about commitment to those ideas and to see one's ideas to fruition. It is only then that a dialog can truly continue through the ages.
Well I just thought of the obvious argument now against my idea about seeing ideas to fruition. The argument is that what if you have so many ideas. Kind of like Ramanujan in math. What does one do then? Does he or she take the time to develop only a few of those ideas. Or should that person crank out lots of work of varying quality? I guess the answer there lies in how commited the artist is to the ideas that they are preseneting. I guess we can call this the Godard connundrum or art. But at least ideas are being shared and I think ultimatly that is what needs to happen.
But I guess it's just a thought.