I've seen this list a few times before, and while I must admit that I find some of it to be horribly over-used trite nonsense, one of the guidelines in particular I think sums up the way I've tried to live my life: "Learn the rules, so you know how to break them properly." The last time I heard someone say that was in a class on how to write perfectly law-abiding counterpoint in music, and I still think it's just about the wisest piece of advice I've received.
While we're discussing wise little tidbits, here's a somewhat longer one, on the subject of what it is to be an artist (musician, writer, painter, or otherwise). I tend to agree with this wholeheartedly, but I'd like to hear what other people have to say about it.
"Arthur Danto, The Nation's long-winded art critic, recently asked himself why he was never convinced by the paintings of Francis Bacon. Then he came upon an interview wherein Bacon claimed that the Screaming Pope series was not a trauma about, or a commentary on, life today, merely studies of a screaming pope. Danto, decreeing what should or should not preoccupy creators as they create, concluded that Bacon was superficial. I can't read Danto anymore without giggling. (Kafka, according to Max Brod, thought of his stories as studies: The Penal Colony to him was a great joke.) The artist is simply a conduit twixt the Great Unknown and the concertgoer, and need have no fixed notions of his own. He is a god without a message. We consumers will make a message."
I just find that to be fascinating, and in some way relevant to our discussions here (or as relevant as some of our more tangentially related topics). What do people think? Should an artist have a message, or should the artist just create (as people will find a message in anything)? Of course, for that matter, do we really have any right to say what an artist "should" do? Even if you think we don't, it's still awfully fun to try, so please, I'd love to hear some thoughts.
-Scott
Mr. Lama and friends
Scott
location: Canada
listening to: Brooks Williams
registered: 2009.07.04
posts: 89
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
S
Scott
(view)
I've seen this list a few times before, and while I must admit that I find some of it to be horribly over-used trite nonsense, one of the guidelines in particular I think sums up the way I've tried to live my life: "Learn the rules, so you know how to break them properly." The last time I heard someone say that was in a class on how to write perfectly law-abiding counterpoint in music, and I still think it's just about the wisest piece of advice I've received.
While we're discussing wise little tidbits, here's a somewhat longer one, on the subject of what it is to be an artist (musician, writer, painter, or otherwise). I tend to agree with this wholeheartedly, but I'd like to hear what other people have to say about it.
"Arthur Danto, The Nation's long-winded art critic, recently asked himself why he was never convinced by the paintings of Francis Bacon. Then he came upon an interview wherein Bacon claimed that the Screaming Pope series was not a trauma about, or a commentary on, life today, merely studies of a screaming pope. Danto, decreeing what should or should not preoccupy creators as they create, concluded that Bacon was superficial. I can't read Danto anymore without giggling. (Kafka, according to Max Brod, thought of his stories as studies: The Penal Colony to him was a great joke.) The artist is simply a conduit twixt the Great Unknown and the concertgoer, and need have no fixed notions of his own. He is a god without a message. We consumers will make a message."
I just find that to be fascinating, and in some way relevant to our discussions here (or as relevant as some of our more tangentially related topics). What do people think? Should an artist have a message, or should the artist just create (as people will find a message in anything)? Of course, for that matter, do we really have any right to say what an artist "should" do? Even if you think we don't, it's still awfully fun to try, so please, I'd love to hear some thoughts.
-Scott
While we're discussing wise little tidbits, here's a somewhat longer one, on the subject of what it is to be an artist (musician, writer, painter, or otherwise). I tend to agree with this wholeheartedly, but I'd like to hear what other people have to say about it.
"Arthur Danto, The Nation's long-winded art critic, recently asked himself why he was never convinced by the paintings of Francis Bacon. Then he came upon an interview wherein Bacon claimed that the Screaming Pope series was not a trauma about, or a commentary on, life today, merely studies of a screaming pope. Danto, decreeing what should or should not preoccupy creators as they create, concluded that Bacon was superficial. I can't read Danto anymore without giggling. (Kafka, according to Max Brod, thought of his stories as studies: The Penal Colony to him was a great joke.) The artist is simply a conduit twixt the Great Unknown and the concertgoer, and need have no fixed notions of his own. He is a god without a message. We consumers will make a message."
I just find that to be fascinating, and in some way relevant to our discussions here (or as relevant as some of our more tangentially related topics). What do people think? Should an artist have a message, or should the artist just create (as people will find a message in anything)? Of course, for that matter, do we really have any right to say what an artist "should" do? Even if you think we don't, it's still awfully fun to try, so please, I'd love to hear some thoughts.
-Scott
