I wrote this to a friend the other day. Partially, it was implied in jest to make a point that it's okay to fictionalize personal stories for the sake of art. I attributed the quote to Lao Tzu to "trick" his mind into legitimizing the statement.
When I said, "just kidding" and told him it was my quote, not Lao Tzu's, the seed of the wisdom had already been planted so that integration of the content was the issue, not the frame (or source). It is similar to the adage of "it's the message, not the messenger" that matters, but going one step further by the application.
To bind ourselves contextually to our own experiences is a very small place to live in the world. No one person, or family can possibly sit in the center of relationship to all things. We must expand beyond our own sphere of comfort and personal dynamics of living in order to fully experience the potential of our lives. Obviously, we don't want to experience poverty or war firsthand, but in order to truly understand the world, we must vicariously encounter these things through exposure to the Arts.
The Arts can be music, poetry, literature, film, dance, or theatre. To be clear, I don't consider newspapers (or most print media) to be necessarily art; although reportage and its craft is a legitimate form of expression, it does not consider relationship. It is (supposed to be) non-biased, non-emotional. The Arts give us the opposing intention of meaning. We are intended to relate to art, to feel.
Utilizing the Arts for any form of relationship, we have to examine the most effective medium by which to relate. As an artist, the question of truth arises from the question of whether the intended audience will believe the work enough to abstract meaning. Most people creating art become lost at this juncture, immediately out of the gate, so to speak. Most people creating art believe their own experience is the truest and most visceral they can offer. While this can be true, it most often isn't for one simple reason: Most people's lives are not all that interesting or meaningful for anyone but themselves.
As harsh as this sounds, on the average, most lives follow similar trajectories, specific to the circles one is either born into or has chosen. Musicians live the lives of musicians, senators lives the lives of senators, factory workers lives the lives of factory workers, and so on. The point at which we find meaning is when we twist the predictable experiences into unpredictable ones. Another way to say this is that by interpreting our lives in a dissimilar context than most, we create an opening (a peek) into another experience of life. Therefore, we engage our imagination, and conjure a reality seen through a different viewfinder. Hence, uniqueness is born of the sum of perspective and imagination. All of the best of the Arts possesses uniqueness; the offering of something new, and an opportunity to expand the conversation of possibilities. Meaning is manipulated into being.
This is not a bad thing. The abstraction of meaning can only be conjured. It doesn't exist except in the mind, heart, or soul. This is the result of high art - quite a precious commodity.
When I said, "just kidding" and told him it was my quote, not Lao Tzu's, the seed of the wisdom had already been planted so that integration of the content was the issue, not the frame (or source). It is similar to the adage of "it's the message, not the messenger" that matters, but going one step further by the application.
To bind ourselves contextually to our own experiences is a very small place to live in the world. No one person, or family can possibly sit in the center of relationship to all things. We must expand beyond our own sphere of comfort and personal dynamics of living in order to fully experience the potential of our lives. Obviously, we don't want to experience poverty or war firsthand, but in order to truly understand the world, we must vicariously encounter these things through exposure to the Arts.
The Arts can be music, poetry, literature, film, dance, or theatre. To be clear, I don't consider newspapers (or most print media) to be necessarily art; although reportage and its craft is a legitimate form of expression, it does not consider relationship. It is (supposed to be) non-biased, non-emotional. The Arts give us the opposing intention of meaning. We are intended to relate to art, to feel.
Utilizing the Arts for any form of relationship, we have to examine the most effective medium by which to relate. As an artist, the question of truth arises from the question of whether the intended audience will believe the work enough to abstract meaning. Most people creating art become lost at this juncture, immediately out of the gate, so to speak. Most people creating art believe their own experience is the truest and most visceral they can offer. While this can be true, it most often isn't for one simple reason: Most people's lives are not all that interesting or meaningful for anyone but themselves.
As harsh as this sounds, on the average, most lives follow similar trajectories, specific to the circles one is either born into or has chosen. Musicians live the lives of musicians, senators lives the lives of senators, factory workers lives the lives of factory workers, and so on. The point at which we find meaning is when we twist the predictable experiences into unpredictable ones. Another way to say this is that by interpreting our lives in a dissimilar context than most, we create an opening (a peek) into another experience of life. Therefore, we engage our imagination, and conjure a reality seen through a different viewfinder. Hence, uniqueness is born of the sum of perspective and imagination. All of the best of the Arts possesses uniqueness; the offering of something new, and an opportunity to expand the conversation of possibilities. Meaning is manipulated into being.
This is not a bad thing. The abstraction of meaning can only be conjured. It doesn't exist except in the mind, heart, or soul. This is the result of high art - quite a precious commodity.
No comments:
Post a Comment