2. one for the angels
This is not my practise.
Or at least this is not the practise.
It is just a practise - which I have.
I really enjoyed the debate around how necessary art is - I think these topics of selfishness, genius and integrity are so vast and interesting. I was trying to think about how best to respond to the topics raised, and maybe I will offer something very obvious as a reminder for myself.
The more artists I meet, the more I become excited by how nothing is necessarily true. Say, for instance, between a small group of us we could agree that all art is necessary, then we have an agreed truth for our community. However, next week a new member joins who introduces their practice as the pursuit of making unnecessary art… has our one agreed truth now been broken? Perhaps the pursuit of creating the unnecessary comes from the intrinsic belief that art is always necessary. But with the fallible craft of naming things with words, do we diminish our imagined unnecessary art practice-r? Perhaps for another, making unnecessary art is a celebration of the ability to be unnecessary? Perhaps it is just taste - maybe unnecessary things are more interesting to me.
It also made me think about the relationship of religion to art, for instance there are divisive preachings on art from Quakers in the 18th and 19th Century:
(Richard Batt, 1836)
"Frequent and earnest have been the advices of former yearly meetings, that all under our name may avoid the attendance of vain sports, and places of amusement, which divert the mind from serious reflection, and incline it to wantonness and vanity. Understanding that diversions of this kind are spreading, and playhouses increasing in various places, we are concerned to renew a caution on this subject: being clearly convinced of the pernicious effects of these evil practices, the inventions of degenerate man."
(London Yearly Meeting, 1785)
I am often confronted with the view that art is vanity.
Maybe I react very strongly to this and I make it my mission to create art which is selfless and produces undoubtable good in the world. Maybe I take this as the fuel of my practice and decide I will only make work if it is vain in every way possible.
It reminds me of #letsmakeshithappen, a project which dance artist Valerie Ebuwa runs. The idea behind #letsmakeshithappen is raising funds for minority artists to create work with no expectation of success. Maybe through this lens I could propose:
Unnecessary art is necessary.
This truth is, in this instance, (maybe) only applicable to its context - it is unnecessary art for those that aren’t privileged enough to receive the support in the first instance. It follows a methodology that if the privileged can create shit art without recompense, then everyone should be able to. Maybe also that the unnecessary is a precursor to the necessary.
In my own work I try and make art which is necessary, but I do think that probably comes down to feeling that my privilege requires that of me - but I’m also trying to be open so that doesn’t have to be the case. Or maybe it does. But I guess that would still just be an opinion.
I’m not intending to dismiss anyone’s perspectives, but I think I’m trying to antagonise my own relationship to art in relationship to our discussion.
I hope we disagree more and use it as a way to truly meet each other.
Link: Quakers on the Arts, 1658-1995
Link: Valerie Ebuwa discussing #letsmakeshithappen
One for the Angels - The Twilight Zone, Season 1, Episode 2
I'm so happy you say that Ann and thanks for reading! It's so true how much that has changed as I become more experienced also - but I really enjoy when I become less sure of anything - I hope at least that working like that keeps things alive and stops us becoming complacent
ReplyDeleteBeautifully written and I agree with Ann, there are presently more questions than answers as we explore or reflect on our experiences both in performance, teaching, and also as we reflect on how our arts experience intersects with other areas of our lives. Is art necessary? Maybe it depends on where we are in our experience, paradigms and lives when an artistic touchpoint occurs. Today, 'yes', tomorrow when I'm trying to pay for petrol and 'some guy' just got paid a million for 'rubbish', then, for the average person, maybe not, in that moment. Free tix to the ballet tomorrow? Sure! Thanks. Now I may see art as necessary again. So, i think it's acceptance in mainstream society may be quite fluid We see examples of this all the time when governments cut funding to the arts. From a practitioner level, I think whether shock tactics are deliberately deployed to get a public reaction or create some sort of political didactic theater, or the public is experiencing a 'nice painting' or 'nice ballet', I think the starting point for the artists have one thing in common, that is to illicit some sort of reaction from the recipient.
ReplyDeleteYes exactly this! And it's so interesting as you say how personal necessity is depending on the situation surrounding it. You remind me also I do have maybe different feelings when it comes to art that's being made with public money - especially if the artist has promised to do 'good' or make a difference within a community, then I really believe we should be held accountable for at least trying to do so...
DeleteThe concept of art is not universal. Even from the linguistic perspective, the definition of 'art' varies from culture to culture and age to age. For example, Hegel did not include dance in his rating of art at all (but included music). The art, how we perceive it now, is a rather recent invention in human history. There is a book I would recommend if you are interested in the topic: The Invention of Art: A Cultural History by Larry Shiner.
ReplyDeleteOooh thank you Olga for the recommendation it sounds super interesting!
Delete