A contemporary thought on art, Twitter inclusive
I posted this on Amanda Palmer's blog and forgot about it for a while. But I reread it and realized I want to hold onto it and this is the best archive I've got. So it's not exactly a blog post because it's actually a very long comment. When I have time (or something) I'll come back and mine for the points I made and do something a little more useful with it. In the meantime, read and, if the spirit moves you, tell me what you think.
In her post Amanda wrote about the instant art in tweeting and blogging, though in truth I think what it amounts to is instant expression. The validity of instant publishing as art has typically been denigrated and Amanda asked why couldn't it be up to the par of traditional expression. Was it the lack of editing? Was it too self-serving? She touched on fans getting angry with George RR Martin blogging about football instead of publishing the next installment of Song of Ice and Fire.
My response backed away from the specifics of her use of Twitter and looked at what we expect to find in art and when we make art and when we don't.
I have been turning over the question in my head again, after nearly a decade and half of NOT (feeling that I answered it well enough in my academic days), What is art?
The idea I'm running with is: art is the truth as experienced (or perhaps framed) by human mind. "Mind" should be understand as the total apparatus with which each of us takes in an experience, not merely intellect, but spirit, emotion, physical realization, etc. "Human" defined as person, as creature who not only participates in society but comments on it, is defined by it and otherwise is synechdoche. Experience requires narrative; framing requires editing. A scene, a event, an experience can't exist subjectively as far as humans are concerned without context and context requires both narrative and editing. Otherwise you see a tree and a tree and a tree and a tree and a tree and a tree, but never forest. Truth is well...there's rub, ay?
We build everything we come across into narrative. The human mind is hardwired for it; we just can't help it. It's a building block essential to analysis as well as creative leaps. Without knowing that a cold season is on its way, whether through past experience or the experience of others, we wouldn't be able to prepare and thus we might not survive the season. Without looking ahead to, say, the clothing we will want/need in future there isn't such a thing as fashion.
When things change as response to changing conditions and old modes are dumped because they are no longer viable, this is called evolution. But evolution doesn't eclipse the essence what we need. No matter how mad fashion may get, if it doesn't accommodate the wearer to her circumstance (e.g. the climate) either the wearer will put on something else or suffer physically.
But the essential point is this: it's not merely what the creator puts out but what the consumer (experiencer? the connotation of "consumer" throws off what I'm trying to say, even if it's the most specific word). Generally speaking, we don't consider sunsets to be artistic in and of themselves, even when those of us who believe of a divine power comment along the lines of "God outdid himself this time!" it's not quite what we mean by art. However, a photograph of such a beautiful sunset can be artistic. But just ask Kyle Cassidy, photographs require narrative and framing, even if they're sloppy. Or rather, a photograph will have these qualities, even if the photographer wasn't mindful of them.
But I keep thinking well there's the leftovers you microwave because you don't have the time to really cook and then there's the full on big meals that you plot out carefully, test spices for, contemplate the best pairings so the most can be made of each flavor and characteristic of the food (and drink). And we call the second kind of cooking a kind of art. Does it mean art inherently requires work? Attention? Thought? Maybe. But in consumption the first meal likely won't bring out the truth of the food quite the way the second one would. But we'll eat either one, probably. Within reasonable parameters. Personally, I prefer the second in a social situation, whether I'm cooking for others or receiving the fruit of their kitchen. I try not to be ungracious but I'd feel a little unloved if I was expressly invited to dinner and my friend just nuked some leftovers for out dinner. ...within reason of
course.
I also think of the great painters - Picasso, et al - whose sketch books fetch top dollar at auction, though they themselves never intended for the sketchbooks to be consumed in the same context as their finished works. We can see the strength of a brilliant artist in the books but what is that compared to Guernica?
Yeah, you could leave behind editing. There's never been an absolute objective need for it. Apollo is not going to come down and yell at you, the muses aren't going to head out and find someone else to hang with. But there is subjective preference - and subjective distaste. You don't mind if George RR Martin spends the rest of his days blogging about football instead of writing his Song of Ice and Fire series? Fine, neither do I, because as it happens I didn't like A Game of Thrones. And maybe his blog could contribute to the body of literature, and maybe the blog is truth, resonating with both Martin and many of his readers... but it's not doing whatever Song of Ice and Fire was doing.
Sorry, I don't have direct comment for your blogs or tweets with regard to their possible artistry. You've made your point that you expend energy on crafting them, though only you know how much effort and when exactly you gave up and just reheated some leftovers, so to speak. Only you know when you really worked to bring out the truth and when you
just tapped out what was necessary to keep moving. And only I know when I skim most of your tweets because you've gone on a tear about something I don't care about and are seeking only validation, dismissing dissenting opinions (or retweeting them so followers know who's being
the jerk this time), versus when I write down something you wrote in my hard notebook because it was so clear-eyed and true and I don't trust Twitter's non-archiving to remember for me.
It's funny, the last time I answered this question I was in college and already bored of the subject. I'd tackled it before, in Theory of Knowledge, Drama and music classes in high school. Since college I just wasn't that interested in the investigation and once I consider something settled I'm not crazy about repeating myself. But since college the Internet has turned everything on its ear and the way art is created, consumed, criticized and otherwise considered has been absolutely altered.
In her post Amanda wrote about the instant art in tweeting and blogging, though in truth I think what it amounts to is instant expression. The validity of instant publishing as art has typically been denigrated and Amanda asked why couldn't it be up to the par of traditional expression. Was it the lack of editing? Was it too self-serving? She touched on fans getting angry with George RR Martin blogging about football instead of publishing the next installment of Song of Ice and Fire.
My response backed away from the specifics of her use of Twitter and looked at what we expect to find in art and when we make art and when we don't.
I have been turning over the question in my head again, after nearly a decade and half of NOT (feeling that I answered it well enough in my academic days), What is art?
The idea I'm running with is: art is the truth as experienced (or perhaps framed) by human mind. "Mind" should be understand as the total apparatus with which each of us takes in an experience, not merely intellect, but spirit, emotion, physical realization, etc. "Human" defined as person, as creature who not only participates in society but comments on it, is defined by it and otherwise is synechdoche. Experience requires narrative; framing requires editing. A scene, a event, an experience can't exist subjectively as far as humans are concerned without context and context requires both narrative and editing. Otherwise you see a tree and a tree and a tree and a tree and a tree and a tree, but never forest. Truth is well...there's rub, ay?
We build everything we come across into narrative. The human mind is hardwired for it; we just can't help it. It's a building block essential to analysis as well as creative leaps. Without knowing that a cold season is on its way, whether through past experience or the experience of others, we wouldn't be able to prepare and thus we might not survive the season. Without looking ahead to, say, the clothing we will want/need in future there isn't such a thing as fashion.
When things change as response to changing conditions and old modes are dumped because they are no longer viable, this is called evolution. But evolution doesn't eclipse the essence what we need. No matter how mad fashion may get, if it doesn't accommodate the wearer to her circumstance (e.g. the climate) either the wearer will put on something else or suffer physically.
But the essential point is this: it's not merely what the creator puts out but what the consumer (experiencer? the connotation of "consumer" throws off what I'm trying to say, even if it's the most specific word). Generally speaking, we don't consider sunsets to be artistic in and of themselves, even when those of us who believe of a divine power comment along the lines of "God outdid himself this time!" it's not quite what we mean by art. However, a photograph of such a beautiful sunset can be artistic. But just ask Kyle Cassidy, photographs require narrative and framing, even if they're sloppy. Or rather, a photograph will have these qualities, even if the photographer wasn't mindful of them.
But I keep thinking well there's the leftovers you microwave because you don't have the time to really cook and then there's the full on big meals that you plot out carefully, test spices for, contemplate the best pairings so the most can be made of each flavor and characteristic of the food (and drink). And we call the second kind of cooking a kind of art. Does it mean art inherently requires work? Attention? Thought? Maybe. But in consumption the first meal likely won't bring out the truth of the food quite the way the second one would. But we'll eat either one, probably. Within reasonable parameters. Personally, I prefer the second in a social situation, whether I'm cooking for others or receiving the fruit of their kitchen. I try not to be ungracious but I'd feel a little unloved if I was expressly invited to dinner and my friend just nuked some leftovers for out dinner. ...within reason of
course.
I also think of the great painters - Picasso, et al - whose sketch books fetch top dollar at auction, though they themselves never intended for the sketchbooks to be consumed in the same context as their finished works. We can see the strength of a brilliant artist in the books but what is that compared to Guernica?
Yeah, you could leave behind editing. There's never been an absolute objective need for it. Apollo is not going to come down and yell at you, the muses aren't going to head out and find someone else to hang with. But there is subjective preference - and subjective distaste. You don't mind if George RR Martin spends the rest of his days blogging about football instead of writing his Song of Ice and Fire series? Fine, neither do I, because as it happens I didn't like A Game of Thrones. And maybe his blog could contribute to the body of literature, and maybe the blog is truth, resonating with both Martin and many of his readers... but it's not doing whatever Song of Ice and Fire was doing.
Sorry, I don't have direct comment for your blogs or tweets with regard to their possible artistry. You've made your point that you expend energy on crafting them, though only you know how much effort and when exactly you gave up and just reheated some leftovers, so to speak. Only you know when you really worked to bring out the truth and when you
just tapped out what was necessary to keep moving. And only I know when I skim most of your tweets because you've gone on a tear about something I don't care about and are seeking only validation, dismissing dissenting opinions (or retweeting them so followers know who's being
the jerk this time), versus when I write down something you wrote in my hard notebook because it was so clear-eyed and true and I don't trust Twitter's non-archiving to remember for me.
It's funny, the last time I answered this question I was in college and already bored of the subject. I'd tackled it before, in Theory of Knowledge, Drama and music classes in high school. Since college I just wasn't that interested in the investigation and once I consider something settled I'm not crazy about repeating myself. But since college the Internet has turned everything on its ear and the way art is created, consumed, criticized and otherwise considered has been absolutely altered.