"I agree that anyone going out to make a huge change in the short-term is liable to appear ridiculous,"
the crucial word here is 'change' - most aren't attempting a huge change they are after a huge effect (which I believe is the word I used) which is a very different thing ...
"today's saviour being tomorrow's dictator?"
surely thats not important? what's important is believing wholeheartedly in what you do and standing by anything that results from what you do (good or bad) in the future - ie honesty always.
'you've got to laugh, it's only life, isn't it?'
but then there's the saying "It's only life. No it's more serious than that."
So do you only measure seriousness in terms of pain?
"life is serious, because it can and does hurt a great deal"
I would argue that the West is in trouble because we no longer try/need to try to be 'the best we can be'.
As the Balinese say, according to McLuhan, when told what Western Art was, “We have no art. We do everything as well as we can."
I think life is serious, because it can and does hurt a great deal.
But as someone once said to me, 'you've got to laugh, it's only life, isn't it?'. It's definitely not as serious as it sometimes feels.
And yes, I stand by not taking ourselves too seriously - of course, the definition of 'too' is very open, but to make it any more defined would be impractically prescriptive.
Apologies - my reference to the halcyon past was a slightly flippant response to the Monty Python reference, though in a way there's some (at the time unintended) truth in what I said.
Art typically only has a limited effect in the immediate or short term but the ripples that can spread out from it can be very powerful. It takes time for these ripples to spread, and so, for truly societal altering work to happen, a very long time may need to pass.
But that's stretching the point a little - I agree that anyone going out to make a huge change in the short-term is liable to appear ridiculous, which isn't to say that it's impossible.
I remember reading somewhere that Freud was determined from a young age to have a big effect on the world, and I'm sure he would have appeared ridiculous if we could have been there to hear him stating this.
But more than that, I'm wary of people that want to affect dramatic or big change - especially if they say they know what that change should be. Isn't there a saying about today's saviour being tomorrow's dictator?
My inclination is more towards a socially engaged art that Rajni hints towards in a previous comment on my wall -
she talks of the 'smaller (and often more valuable) steps many of us are making [in a broader definition] of socially engaged work... when artists use as a focus of their work their audiences - either through seeking out new audiences, or new ways to engage them. What it comes down to for me is whether an artist is more concerned with these connections, these processes, or with product and commercial success'
She acknowledges that it's a crude distinction but I like it as a working definition.
I think that there's a tendency - as with much of what we talk about - for such an art form to become a too easy way out.
Some people expect humour to be enough on its own. And this laziness often does come across as ridiculous (and not particularly funny with it).
But humour can be enough, if it's what the art's 'based on' - but just as there's often something political or at least highly insightful in the best comedy, so there is within the best art.
Personally, I think that making humourous art is generally easier than making something beautiful, and since being welcomed into the artistic pantheon, has, at times, been a little too dominant.
I include myself within that maltendency as well - I'd like too make more beautiful work and use less humour.
Comment Wall (4 comments)
You need to be a member of The Art of Engagement to add comments!
Join this Ning Network
the crucial word here is 'change' - most aren't attempting a huge change they are after a huge effect (which I believe is the word I used) which is a very different thing ...
"today's saviour being tomorrow's dictator?"
surely thats not important? what's important is believing wholeheartedly in what you do and standing by anything that results from what you do (good or bad) in the future - ie honesty always.
'you've got to laugh, it's only life, isn't it?'
but then there's the saying "It's only life. No it's more serious than that."
So do you only measure seriousness in terms of pain?
"life is serious, because it can and does hurt a great deal"
I would argue that the West is in trouble because we no longer try/need to try to be 'the best we can be'.
As the Balinese say, according to McLuhan, when told what Western Art was, “We have no art. We do everything as well as we can."
But as someone once said to me, 'you've got to laugh, it's only life, isn't it?'. It's definitely not as serious as it sometimes feels.
And yes, I stand by not taking ourselves too seriously - of course, the definition of 'too' is very open, but to make it any more defined would be impractically prescriptive.
Apologies - my reference to the halcyon past was a slightly flippant response to the Monty Python reference, though in a way there's some (at the time unintended) truth in what I said.
Art typically only has a limited effect in the immediate or short term but the ripples that can spread out from it can be very powerful. It takes time for these ripples to spread, and so, for truly societal altering work to happen, a very long time may need to pass.
But that's stretching the point a little - I agree that anyone going out to make a huge change in the short-term is liable to appear ridiculous, which isn't to say that it's impossible.
I remember reading somewhere that Freud was determined from a young age to have a big effect on the world, and I'm sure he would have appeared ridiculous if we could have been there to hear him stating this.
But more than that, I'm wary of people that want to affect dramatic or big change - especially if they say they know what that change should be. Isn't there a saying about today's saviour being tomorrow's dictator?
My inclination is more towards a socially engaged art that Rajni hints towards in a previous comment on my wall -
she talks of the 'smaller (and often more valuable) steps many of us are making [in a broader definition] of socially engaged work... when artists use as a focus of their work their audiences - either through seeking out new audiences, or new ways to engage them. What it comes down to for me is whether an artist is more concerned with these connections, these processes, or with product and commercial success'
She acknowledges that it's a crude distinction but I like it as a working definition.
Some people expect humour to be enough on its own. And this laziness often does come across as ridiculous (and not particularly funny with it).
But humour can be enough, if it's what the art's 'based on' - but just as there's often something political or at least highly insightful in the best comedy, so there is within the best art.
Personally, I think that making humourous art is generally easier than making something beautiful, and since being welcomed into the artistic pantheon, has, at times, been a little too dominant.
I include myself within that maltendency as well - I'd like too make more beautiful work and use less humour.
I think such actions sadly live only in the halcyon past.
But with your dedication to MP, who knows - perhaps they'll do a phoenix on us?