Much art that I have seen of late has a very strong socio-political component.
I question how effective , though well intended, this work actually achieves.
I realize we are in a world of great and rapid change. A world where virtually any scenario could reveal itself, from the most dire and apocalyptic to the most utopian and Pollyana. However much of what I see seems more like reportage, a reportage that tends toward preaching to the converted. This converted population, that although aware, tends to have an emotional temperature running toward cynicism, malaise and depression.
Art also has the capability to lead towards celebration, inherent in this is the same impulse that indicates all possibilities, that supports fundamental movements of gratitude, mystery and harmony. These are equally fertile areas to address the social and political issues of our times.
Art can be the visual component of story. And there are a lot of stories, instructive emboldening and sustaining stories.
Like poetry, concepts do not need to be clearly defined to be meaningful.
Every manifestation contains within it something besides which it seems to be
Paradigm shifts, self organizing principles, applied complexity theory.
In the line of pursuit of what’s going on anyways.
Is it possible to accept all this as a kind of divine working? (with or without a (G)od). In every aspect of this unfathomable construct, all I get is wonder. It’s just too damn confusing to see it as anything else. Well, maybe wonder and praise. Rips and tears in a neurotic self serving linear order Benevolent disruptions of applied creativity. Benevolent disruptions that seek to heal.
Embrace and encourage all possibility,all disciplines, before ruling out
anything. Then sort and purge. then work what’s left back into the system.
My friend Matthew came over the other day. We got to talking about art, artists, working, and life in general. The conversation was freewheeling, time passed fleet and unnoticed.So many thoughts and ideas emeged that I wondered aloud if I was talking too much, if perhaps I wasn’t listening, monopolizing the conversation.
I was assured that wasn’t the case.
At that point I realized the conversation, the visit, took on a life of its own. I was no longer completely me. I was something else, I was a part of the entity of conversation, interaction and emergent thought.
Anais Nin hit it on the head—
“Each friend represents a world in us, a world possibly not born until they arrive, and it is only by this meeting that a new world is born.”
If there is something in the fundamental framework of a system (any system) that is corrupt or ill thought out the system will fall apart, giving in to a new system. On the other hand if it is fundamentally sound it will self correct.
For some reason freedom is defined for us citizens politically. It seems something as precious and personal as freedom needs additional input from those outside the policy and law fields.
How does the artist define it? The inventor? the Businessman? The scientist? The psychologist? The clergy?
It seems a definition is very complex, how can it be applied universally?
This demands another question, what isn’t freedom? Is the real, day to day, filled with freedom options?
If we are bound to our reality by our definitions, conditions or stories that we surround ourselves with, then these questions are not trivial at all.
Definitions, conditions and stories can change. Change and creativity are in the same family. GET CREATIVE!