As a creative person and an artist I am, like, most artists, constantly striving to make work that satisfies both my vision and my compulsion. To create for the purpose of selling and making money is a noteworthy endeavor, but the most grinding of monotonous boredom. It takes a very particular commission to generate any interest or enthusiasm. To create for concept and dialogue is increasingly pointless. Any position you can take has been already taken by any number of other artists, both more and less capable. This ensures that the only way to have your art received well enough to begin that dialogue (outside an academic setting) is to make it "original", which is the third possible point of satisfaction that engages an artist. However, you can ignore the amalgam of art history and pretend that you are being original until you are confronted with the evidence that you are not, or you can fall prey to the notion that "there is nothing new under the sun" (which is quite biblical, but seems limiting to an artist's hopes that he/she can make a truly unique piece), but I don't see the way to escape either conclusion for long.
This promotes a certain despair in the artist's mindset that is typically already besieged with the inadequacies of the world around, and can serve as a damper to many possible projects or concepts.
Fortunately, contemporary art practices provides an idea that supersedes those three formats and allows an artist to make work under the proposition of integrity. I was first introduced to the idea of integrity as an art student. It was immediately appealing in that it seemed to validate that I cold make anything as long as I was "true" to the integrity of my vision. This of course is a misapplied and simplified twist of the whole idea, as integrity is not quite malleable into the relativistic idea that my art must be accepted as such if I can "prove" the validity and integrity of my work and concepts, although a large part of formal art training is the proving of just such an idea.
Personally, I have reached the point where the making of art under that pretense is no more satisfying than making it for money, concept, or originality, which sometimes threatens to derail any project I begin.
There is another way to look at the idea of integrity though that does provide reason and impetus to continue work. This way is sort of the esoteric shibui (beauty with inner implications) of the concept integrity. It is this concept that provides me with an external meaning for integrity with which to work, and I am not long into any piece or idea before I get the sense that I am within this aesthetic integrity or not. It is becoming my basis for achieving, through this integrity, any of the other form/means that come with an artistic expression.
When it works it is an amazing thing. When it falls short it is excruciating.
This type of integrity begins with (though it has become fashionably trite to say) the zen of material- to not necessarily master, but to know and to respect the medium. It is to use the nature of that medium to be what it is, rather than fight against and make it what it is not. *For more on the origins and explanations of this idea see pre-restoration Japanese wooden sculptures and the particular and reverent architecture of Shinto shrines.
This truth to material allows for more manipulation of the material and better control over how it may represent the overall concept.
Working past the material is the tricky part. There are many moments that the concept must be tested and revised and shifted, but there is one moment in particular that is the point where the idea must stand or fall on its own. It is the point where material, concept, and craftsmanship must meet. Failure to do so does not mean a piece can't be successful, but rather that its execution lacks some quality. This is 98% of an artists finished personal work. (which is why we keep making, or fall into making the same thing over and over and over). And that doesn't include those pieces that were doomed from the start but the artist fails to notice...
I wish I could better describe the end of this aesthetic integrity (for me), but it is, unfortunately only 2%, and often seems to conflict in resolution, Sometimes I am satisfied and simply walk away from it, as detached as Greenburg ever could be. This is what I think the exemplar should be; that the piece can be let go, to exist on its own as it were. Other times, I admit, I am too attached, and don't want to let a piece go and this becomes a fetter and an expectation of future work. On rare occasion, this feeling is due to the exceptional success of the piece (though I have seen others wonder how that could be, considering what they are looking at- so in a way it still falls short in some respects of audience) but this only partially ameliorates the problem.
So it is this sense of artistic integrity that demands attention to material, defines the level of craftsmanship, and tests the overall vision or concept. The search for it in my work is exacting and frustrating. It leads to many abandoned or never begun projects, and I hope really that I am not in some way hindering myself with such demands. Many are the times I have struggled through a piece only to bury it so that it may never be seen by mortal eyes (that may be a slight exaggeration). Is it worth it? Will it lead me to that philosophic aesthetic I am looking for? I don't know yet. I may not for a while
But, it keeps me working.
Monday, June 27, 2016
A Brief History on the Nature and Habits of the Absolute Relativist
(a tongue-in-cheek look at a contemporary occurrence)
There has been, on any number of occasions, the opportunity to observe the peculiarities of a relatively new creature that has become increasingly more common, as well as more prodigious, since the advent of the 21st century. A strange creature, of dubious logical positioning, that has come to be known as Relativus absoluta (a semi-Latinate designation that translates to Absolute Relativist). The meaning of the appellation deriving from the terms absolute-being self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships (def 9) and relativist- a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them (def 2).
It is, of course, readily apparent that the terms, when juxtaposed, are contraindicative and establish an oxymoron, a device to be avoided generally speaking, except in such instances as its use in satire or in circumstances of irony, such as is the case herein.
This creature, the Absolute Relativist, can trace its ancestry directly to the demise of Modernist theory in the mid-20th century and the advent of post-Modern theory, along with its cousin Deconstructivism. Modernism itself can trace its lineage through time back to the Enlightenment period of the late 18th century and the intertwining of scientific thought as praxis for the dissemination of world-view, rather than spirituality, myth, religion, faith, or, dare I say, the sublime. This scientific-ism did not fully gestate into its present form until the first World War shredded the utopian idealism of the pre-war western world, leaving literature, Art, and philosophy, seeing the ramifications, in a desperate search for meaning, especially grand unifying meaning.
The search, through Modernism, proved fruitless however, as western thought dismantled itself, and the underlying structure necessary to build upon, at the same time it attempted to apprehend this universal concept. As an aside, it would be remiss here not to note the schism between the actually of scientific thought and the practice of what is considered scientific thought in the sense that science, built upon pre-existing thought, when proven deficient can discard meaningless attribute and rebuild on established systems whereas what is considered scientific thought had no such solid foundation, but must instead redefine terms to avoid structural calamity. The search through the rubble for the former yields Laws and Theory, through the latter there is only more rubble.
Much like the scientist searching for the building blocks of matter and finding ever smaller pieces with ever more peculiar qualities so too the artist, writer, thinker, found less adhesion between thought and reality, though the non-scientist had no Law of Universal Gravitation to revert to stop the free fall. In science this is called Uncertainty. In the Arts it is called Post-Modernism, and in philosophy it is called Relativism.
With this said, it is not important to fully attend the process theory and resultant implications of post-modern relativist thought beyond one simple clarification. To the relativist, meaning is a fluid concept, ever changing, dependent on time, location, and circumstance. Reality is an instantaneous concept, fragmentary, and only coalescing as reality when it is observed through the subjective lens of culture, locale, period, and of course, intelligence. It is not the perception of an objective reality the true relativist denies, but rather the actuality of an objective reality altogether, as reality can be said to be only the convention of subjective discernment.
Very few relativists will acknowledge the fundamental flaw inherent in their world-view, such as Sartre, and of those few most will attempt once again to redefine terms to avoid the problem, such as Dawkins. This flaw can be summed up in the proposition that making an inviolable statement that there are no inviolable statements violates not only the Law of Non-contradiction but also relativism’s most basic tenet.
The Absolute Relativist takes this one step further, not only refusing to recognize this contradiction, but to magnify it to the point of absurdity. Such a creature will not only state that it is absolutely true that everything is relative to subjectivity, but that this point of view is absolutely true and can be deduced from objective empirical data, such as observation. This is to say that the Absolute Relativist claims that there is no external objective source, for truth and value propositions, but that through personal experience they have discovered absolute values and truths. Some such claims made by these creatures are the following: that there is no God (an absolute statement to end all absolute statements, and it is also important to note that, due to their very nature, this is claimed to be not a mere belief, but an exhaustive fact), that people (implying all) are better off today than they used to be, morality is an effect of evolution (people are nice to each other because of it), science is always right (Kuhn begs to differ), being kind makes you good (a valueless statement without a scale by which to measure), and that morality (defined as how to be a good person) has no objective impetus yet is a universal proposition that holds true regardless of the relative situation of cultural, societal, religious, and historical context and is discoverable only by evolution, intelligence, and experience. While this may hold true for some manners of technology or medical practice it seems illogical to infer that there has been a time when people could not have been moral because they were un-evolved or lived outside the proper timeframe.
There has been, on any number of occasions, the opportunity to observe the peculiarities of a relatively new creature that has become increasingly more common, as well as more prodigious, since the advent of the 21st century. A strange creature, of dubious logical positioning, that has come to be known as Relativus absoluta (a semi-Latinate designation that translates to Absolute Relativist). The meaning of the appellation deriving from the terms absolute-being self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships (def 9) and relativist- a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them (def 2).
It is, of course, readily apparent that the terms, when juxtaposed, are contraindicative and establish an oxymoron, a device to be avoided generally speaking, except in such instances as its use in satire or in circumstances of irony, such as is the case herein.
This creature, the Absolute Relativist, can trace its ancestry directly to the demise of Modernist theory in the mid-20th century and the advent of post-Modern theory, along with its cousin Deconstructivism. Modernism itself can trace its lineage through time back to the Enlightenment period of the late 18th century and the intertwining of scientific thought as praxis for the dissemination of world-view, rather than spirituality, myth, religion, faith, or, dare I say, the sublime. This scientific-ism did not fully gestate into its present form until the first World War shredded the utopian idealism of the pre-war western world, leaving literature, Art, and philosophy, seeing the ramifications, in a desperate search for meaning, especially grand unifying meaning.
The search, through Modernism, proved fruitless however, as western thought dismantled itself, and the underlying structure necessary to build upon, at the same time it attempted to apprehend this universal concept. As an aside, it would be remiss here not to note the schism between the actually of scientific thought and the practice of what is considered scientific thought in the sense that science, built upon pre-existing thought, when proven deficient can discard meaningless attribute and rebuild on established systems whereas what is considered scientific thought had no such solid foundation, but must instead redefine terms to avoid structural calamity. The search through the rubble for the former yields Laws and Theory, through the latter there is only more rubble.
Much like the scientist searching for the building blocks of matter and finding ever smaller pieces with ever more peculiar qualities so too the artist, writer, thinker, found less adhesion between thought and reality, though the non-scientist had no Law of Universal Gravitation to revert to stop the free fall. In science this is called Uncertainty. In the Arts it is called Post-Modernism, and in philosophy it is called Relativism.
With this said, it is not important to fully attend the process theory and resultant implications of post-modern relativist thought beyond one simple clarification. To the relativist, meaning is a fluid concept, ever changing, dependent on time, location, and circumstance. Reality is an instantaneous concept, fragmentary, and only coalescing as reality when it is observed through the subjective lens of culture, locale, period, and of course, intelligence. It is not the perception of an objective reality the true relativist denies, but rather the actuality of an objective reality altogether, as reality can be said to be only the convention of subjective discernment.
Very few relativists will acknowledge the fundamental flaw inherent in their world-view, such as Sartre, and of those few most will attempt once again to redefine terms to avoid the problem, such as Dawkins. This flaw can be summed up in the proposition that making an inviolable statement that there are no inviolable statements violates not only the Law of Non-contradiction but also relativism’s most basic tenet.
The Absolute Relativist takes this one step further, not only refusing to recognize this contradiction, but to magnify it to the point of absurdity. Such a creature will not only state that it is absolutely true that everything is relative to subjectivity, but that this point of view is absolutely true and can be deduced from objective empirical data, such as observation. This is to say that the Absolute Relativist claims that there is no external objective source, for truth and value propositions, but that through personal experience they have discovered absolute values and truths. Some such claims made by these creatures are the following: that there is no God (an absolute statement to end all absolute statements, and it is also important to note that, due to their very nature, this is claimed to be not a mere belief, but an exhaustive fact), that people (implying all) are better off today than they used to be, morality is an effect of evolution (people are nice to each other because of it), science is always right (Kuhn begs to differ), being kind makes you good (a valueless statement without a scale by which to measure), and that morality (defined as how to be a good person) has no objective impetus yet is a universal proposition that holds true regardless of the relative situation of cultural, societal, religious, and historical context and is discoverable only by evolution, intelligence, and experience. While this may hold true for some manners of technology or medical practice it seems illogical to infer that there has been a time when people could not have been moral because they were un-evolved or lived outside the proper timeframe.
Sunday, June 26, 2016
The No Agenda Show - Episode 837: "Open the Chunnel!"
Adam and John offer their usual splendid media deconstruction with this episode focusing on the Brexit. Don't miss episode 837 and, by all means, keep propagating the formula!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)