Inspiration and Poetic Form. Though I don't know what I think of the latter: to what extent can a poem made to order for the sake of commercialism be poetry? At least by Emily Dickinson's definition of the same. Which reminds me: there is something I must say soon about art.
7 comments:
Is a film that is made to be screened any less of a film, a book made to be sold any less literature?
Art
Art isn't this perfectly ethereal creature that leaps, fully-formed from the brow of the artist, a coalesced entity composed of one part raw talent and one part inspiration. Those artists who were able to do that are few and far between, and even then - no offense to those concerned - most have probably fluked into it. The best example of this is Mozart, who was able to belt out Symphonies at age 5, but he was still so much better at it when he was an adult.
Inspiration
Inspiration also isn't some mystical fairy dust that gets sprinkled upon your brain by the wondrous information pixie. David Eddings explicitly avoids reading other fantasy works, to keep his ideas 'pure'. Then, when you read over his three major works (the Belgariad/Mallorean, the Elenium/Tamuli, the Althalus work) you find that they're generic, boring, and generally doing the same thing with different names, subtly different dialogue, and other macguffins.
Now, consider Gaiman, who is (at last check) a voracious consumer of popular culture and unpopular culture, who produces books and art and stories that are all wildly interesting and creative. There are probably some similarities, but I'm not so well-read in his works to notice them, and it only takes one read-through of the Eddings works to notice how hackneyed they are.
Inspiration is a mental process that, like most mental processes, is reactive. You can't just sit around thinking "I want to be inspired" and wait for it to happen; you almost always need something external to influence, and as much as some artists wish to proclaim their 'muses', many of them find their muses in doing things. Laudanum, for example. Artists can't just put off creating with an attitude that 'clearly, I will produce my Art [Possibly pronounced with an H or two] when I am Inspired'. Get off your damn tuchus and do something.
I have found that the two best inspirations, ironically, are art and structure; surveying the art of others is often how one best explores their own take on things, and most major artists were inspired by those who came before them. Read, explore, discover, enjoy things. But don't just stop there. Having limits is a valuable thing for art; because then you have things you can operate within (to promote understanding), work around (to promote different thought), or to ignore with an understanding of why you're ignoring them (to demonstrate a concept).
Commercialism
It's also not cheapening it to do it for money, either. Sure, it's a lofty goal to starve to death and have your art appreciated once you're dead, but it's a narcissistic one. How else are you going to live? If you want to make a living as an Artist, you're going to have to find some way that people will give you money for that, and that might, heaven forfend, doing things for money.
The beholden society in which we live has often left some people thinking that they're owed an existance [And I am aware, the irony of an unemployed man saying this] that doesn't require them to put effort in. People don't want to buy your art? Maybe that's because they don't like it. So, either change your art (Horrors!), find someone who does like your art, or find something else to do with yourself.
Structure
It's ironic that the unifying trait of most artists is a lack of structure, because to many, 'artistic' as a personality trait seems to mean 'prone to being disorganised'. We all know at least one artist who isn't, but for the better part, one thing that a lot of artists don't do is actually sit down and work. Work, even when you're not inspired. Work, even when the writing or the sculpture, or the drawing doesn't come out as good as you want it to. Just set aside some time and do the freaking thing.
I'm of the opinion this would help a lot of artists - an element of discipline in doing their work. I understand that I'm not popular in this opinion, and I accept that; I mean, it is just an opinion.
Work
Practice, study, and legwork are important parts of the eventual artistic result, and that means doing creative work that you might lack inspiration for. There are creative writing courses for a reason - there are people who went before us who did the unpleasant task of creating the crap that we might produce if we didn't have their examples to work off. 'If I have seen farther than any man, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants'.
Giving yourself a set goal with a clear reward - I will produce a poem with these notes, to this structure, and with this intent in mind, and my reward is going to be some money for what isn't a lot of effort - is a great way of accentuating your ability. It's practice, it's work, and most of all, someone else gets to hand over the inspiration.
Really, I'm stoked about it. I think it's a great idea.
Steve: oh no, certainly making money off art doesn't cheapen it in anyway. After all, don't we both, you and I (and Jesse and Richard) intend to at least attempt to make money from this very thing. I just feel that this is shouldn't be the entire point of art. That there should also be something... well... meaningful or, at the very least, entertaining about it. Preferably both. But this is my personal opinion with which many people disagree.
Talen. Wow. And yes. And no. That is I both agree and disagree with you. Which is also fine, since there is no 'right' (or, really, no wrong) answer in the eternal disagreement which is artist theory.
I have this in particular to say though: I am asking the question in terms of a particular definition of poetry. That is Emily Dickinson's definition of same (which is appropriate since the person in question is a fan of Dickinson's work). Dickinson, in one of her letters, writes: "If I read something and it makes my whole body go so cold no fire could ever warm it I know that is poetry. If I feel physically like the top of my head has been take off, I know that is poetry. These are the only ways I know it. Is there any other way?" Here poetry is something which inspires, that strips you bare and trembling and full of emotion. If a poem is made to order, to fit someone's specifications, can it inspire? Can it challenge? This is the question I pose.
I agree on the whole: inspiration is only part of art, as is talent, as is, most of all, bloody hard work. For some it comes easier than others. And it is neither purely an instinctive thing, nor purely intellectual, but a blend of the two. Inspiration is about life, about juxtaposition and connections, about every little thing and every big thing. Anything with anything from any certain angle. It happens and it doesn't and in the end, anything can set it off. It is the spark that begins the effulgence. I am very much in favour of structure: structure teaches technique, teaches how to work with an industry (if you are aiming for a commercial market or, indeed, any audience) and teaches one to self-criticise in a helpful way. And yes, screw the traditional cliched image of the artist.
There is nothing wrong with receiving money for it. I have never, however, come across an artist who creates only for the money, rather than for the process of creation and the end product. I have never met an artist who does not create, primarily, for him- or herself over any other. It's such hard work that, if you didn't do it for yourself, you may as well not. There are much easier ways to earn a buck.
In the end, what one person thinks about art is at odds with what at least fifty other people think. Everyone, artist or not, has their own theory about what art is and what it should be or do. None are definitive, none are wrong. Each is individual and true enough for the person who holds it. There is no right and wrong in art; there is that which appeals to some and does not appeal to others.
ok, first off i quote ben affleck from jay and silent bob strike back 'you do the big budget picture THEN you do the indie flick...' basically you work i.e. do things like reindeer games so you have to money to be able to do art i.e. things like jersey girl. as talen pointed out, it's narcisstic to want to starve and die for your art only to be known after you die. after all what good would your LIFE have been? plus it'd probably backfire since you wouldn't be able to enjoy the recognition. if it isn't clear i'm actually agreeing with talen here.
btw kay mucho creds for using effulgence,spike would be so proud. :)
point being you have to suffer a bit and make some money before you get to play and do what you want. just look at our god joss. he has severe issues with both the buffy movie and alien resurrection. it wasn't until he'd script docotred, worked on a sitcom, albiet roseanne, and has his scripts butchered that he was able to create his own verses in the stunning way he did.
true writing purely for money sucks, just look at what's happend to anne rice and john grisham but there are some who understand that you have to do and deal with crap before the genius can be shared.
just my thought.
makse sense. just figured i'd join the conversation. :)
There is some arguing at cross purposes going on here: some of us are directing their attention to my question regarding this specific instance and others are making a stand on commercial art as a whole. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, I hasten to add. Just pointing this out so that conflict and misunderstandings can be kept to a minimum.
On the latter topic...
My feeling is that, as an artist (assuming that you want to do the "indie flick"), you make a choice regarding which way you are going to approach it. You can sacrifice your principles now so that you have the money and the influence to do the project you want to do later, in which case you face a puplic who gets something that they really didn't expect from the artist in question: it lacks a built in audience because of pre-formed prejudices based on earlier work. Alternatively, you could sacrifice your personal comfort and have to work twice as hard (and take up a "day job") to do what you want to do now, in which case you have to produce brilliance and entertainment to get respect from an audience who doesn't know who the fuck you are, (though you may have a potentially built in audience among the arthouse obsessives and academics.) Either way you will be poor and nobody to begin with, it's just that the former choice gives you an option to have your work... er, published (for want of a more general term coming to mind) rather earlier and therefore suffer less. Neither is entirely appealling and both mean that making something artistic and marketable is damn hard work. Neither is necessarily narcissistic: it only becomes so if you deliberately choose suffering because "the artist should suffer".
My personal preference is for the latter: I would rather keep my principles and do what I want to do, even if it does mean being poor as dirt (and having lived off social security for the last 8 years, I know what poor is - at least in Australia - and what it means and exactly how unpleasant it is), having severe restrictions on other areas of my life and finding it much more difficult to find a publisher (things are much harder in the literary world than they are in performance and film). This is my choice. I don't do it because suffering purifies the artist or any such shit. I do it because I want to do what I want to do and I don't want to place anyone in a position where they are able to dictate my work. In the end, I don't know that I could write to order: my inner critic is too fucking strong. Money is nice but, if I have to choose between wealth and integrity, pass me a gun so I can shoot myself in the foot. This goes for all areas in my life. My principles are not for sale, and this is true of many other people. Why should art be any different?
As for this particular example of art for consumption, I agree with Neil Gaiman. She is undercharging for sestinas: "they are tricky little buggers". That is, they are tricky little buggers to do well. And, in my personal opinion, sonnets as well. But then I have always had difficulty with rhyming poetry. But, marginal facetiousness aside, I don't know how much effort she is actually putting into them. In the end, such low prices would indicate to me (as it did to Tim) that she can't be doing a whole lot of work on them and as such the quality will suffer: while the artist does not have to suffer (or ingest mind-altering substances) to produce art, s/he does have to work damn fucking hard to produce anything good. No hard work, no quality.
But my query was more focused on whether or not such poems would - or could - fulfill Dickinson's prerequisites for art, a topic upon which no one has touched. Thoughts? Comments?
Post a Comment