Once you have successfully freed yourself from the Sinatra Imperative, you have taken the first major step toward artistic independence. Suddenly, all the world is available for your creativity, and all the world’s people as well. When you have stopped believing that certain people are more important than others, then you can begin to believe that every person in the world needs beauty, needs story, needs spiritual understanding. Right now, you may have doubts. Right now, you may have accepted what so many people have told you time and time again: that art is unnecessary, art is a luxury, art is boring, art is only for certain kinds of people, art is for the educated elite.
None of this is true. There is no one in the world who, deep in their heart, doesn’t long for the things art offers.
Our culture is awash in art. The fact is that it is almost impossible to avoid it. You drive down the highway and you see billboards — that’s art; you turn on your radio as you drive — that’s art; you watch movies, television — that’s art. But most people don’t think of those things as art, they think of them as commerce. It’s not. The reality is that people are not only absorbing art constantly, but they are creating it as well. They are knitting, weaving, making furniture, growing gardens, telling bedtime stories, creating scrapbooks, taking pictures to post to Facebook, painting rooms, doodling, telling jokes and family stories. This impulse comes from a a human need to create. According to Genesis, humankind is created in God’s image, and God is first and foremost a creator. Creativity is not a right, it is a necessity — it ought to be included on the first tier of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs!
In order to achieve artistic independence, it is important that you rid yourself of the sense that what you do is unimportant. It is important to someone, and your job is to find those people. They are out there, and because you have freed yourself from placing your self-worth in the opinions of only certain kinds of people in certain places, you can go in search of the people who need what you have to offer. Suddenly, you are not competing with many others for the attention of a small group, but instead the whole world is available to you.
Scott, when I first read your piece my first reaction was that this is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read of yours. A bright red McDonald’s billboard along the highway may be colorful and expressive but it’s not Art. Call it visual design or stimulating expressiveness or even creative advertising, but it has a different intention, a different purpose than what Art has.
And knitting and furniture making or picking out the colors of your room are activities of craft, some which can even be classified as fine craft (and all valid and interesting and important actions), but again they are not Art.
These distinctions matter. A lot is lost when we succumb to the pressures of neoliberalism,where distinctions no longer matter. What is lost is the power of Art. Art is a special type of creativity that provides us with different benefits than design, or sports, or growing a garden. This isn’t rocket science. You know this. History has been teaching us the power of Art for thousands of years.
So upon my second reading of your piece I couldn’t help asking myself why is this person attempting to rewrite history and our understanding of art? What is it that he is getting out of this? Maybe you want to shake up theater. Maybe you want to get more people involved. Maybe you are looking for solutions to problems of relevancy and participation or just excitement on the stage. I get that. But you can’t just make stuff up in those attempts. You can’t just say everyone is creative because we are not. You can’t just say everything is art because it’s not. You can’t just say we are washed in art because unfortunately we are not. If only it were so. We’d have a lot less problems than we do today.
Hello, Richard! I am delighted that you have found me in my new digs! While we often disagree, I value your comments because it makes me reconsider my own ideas.
Do I want to “shake up theater”? I can’t think of many disciplines that would benefit more from a good shake, but that was not my intention with this post. I think our disagreement rests in the way we use the word “art.” It seems to me that you use it as an honorific, whereas I use the word to identify anything that involves the intentional arrangement of elements for an aesthetic effect. (I have always found it puzzling, for instance, that we label Warhol’s Campbell Soup Can art, but not the Campbell soup can itself.) I would also say that craft is a subset of art — the application of artistic principles to utilitarian objects (exemplified by, say, William Morris’ chairs). I think we can have many worthwhile conversations about what constitutes good art and bad art (I probably wouldn’t defend McDonald’s Golden Arches as good art), high art and low art, elite art and popular art. All of these distinctions, however, are historically based and not universal.
The point I was trying to make in this post is that those people who dismiss art as a useless luxury fail to see that they are marinated in art at all times, as my title suggests. And that people who wish to lead a life of independent artistry would do best to silence the voices echoing in their head that say art is meant for a small group of sophiticates and instead recognize that art is a necessity for everyone.
How come Dega’s drawing of a ballerina is a work of art and not the actual person he drew? How come Jackson Pollack’s abstractions are a work of art when he wasn’t modeling it after anything in reality? Because it is a result of an action by an artist. Warhol made art works of soup cans. The soup cans were just the subject matter.
And who said that even the most reclusive artist is making work “meant for a small group of sophiticates.” Where did you get that idea? Popular taste is usually the worst arbiter of good art. That doesn’t mean anyone can’t learn about what makes good art good. You have to put some effort into it.
” I use the word to identify anything that involves the intentional arrangement of elements for an aesthetic effect.” You need to do better than this as your definition of art. Hitler’s uniform was an ” arrangement of elements for an aesthetic effect.” So is a Home Depot coffee mug. Both which have nothing to do with art.
Actually, no I don’t have to do better. I would say that a Home Depot mug which includes images is art. Sorry.
Art is a verb. Home Depot Mug Art (HDMA) is sublime. Thanks…
Since we are just making up our own definitions I’ll take my $5 bill to the bank and try to get $20 in change. I love your made up world!
Your definition of art, Richard, is a remnant of the late 19th- and early 20th-century. Throughout most of history, artists were not special but simply a manual laborer, and art was considered a part of the quotidian world. I prefer that attitude.
Scott, That’s just historically incorrect. In 1300 Giotto’s individual talent and vision made him the most sought after painter in northern Italy. Today Michelangelo (1475 – 1564) is not only consider one of the greatest artists of all time but during his own life he was consider the greatest sculpture working. His work was hardly quotidian. I could go on and on. Brunelleschi, Velaquez, Van Gogh, Manet, Turner, Monet; none were considered manual laborers. During their own lifetime they were seen and appreciated for the special talent they had. You can even look as far back as Roman and Greek art work and realize that those who did this amazing specialized work were not mere laborers.
You and I may disagree on where you see the role of the artists in society today but I would suggest you shouldn’t change history to bolster your argument.