Posts
fame and the artist
it occurs to me that I'm very much a "shut up and do something" person in the social media world - in the face-to-face world too, come to think of it. it seems strange to me that I have to distinguish the two, having spent half my life in a world where there was no distinction.
why am I typing this into my blog instead of my personal journal? I suppose a small part of me wants to "influence" the world in some way. when we participate in social media in any way we all know that it's not action in a vacuum and that we intend for others to see it and be affected by it even if in a small way. i imagine a lot of people act online only to feel "real".. in that the things that we do privately, in today's world don't, in a way, really happen. it's ridiculous, but I wonder if that might be part of it. (the tree falling in the woods question: does it make a sound if no one is around to hear it?)
part of the larger experiment of this project is the public-facing aspect to creativity and artistic action. the value of a piece of art, because of its often practical uselessness (unless it's furniture or a decorative weapon, etc.), the intrinsic value of it is unaffected by how many people experience it. If we make something just for us, that's fine. But there is something powerful and multiplying when it reaches and affects many people instead of just one or two. So I see the point in fame, in a way. But that still doesn't make me want to be famous. (notice I haven't mentioned money.. I won't here)
Fame and money (see.. i did.. crap) are two things I don't envy of people because I've felt for a very long time that they corrupt and are very good at ruining lives, and so I don't wish to be part of that messy living. Some famous people seem to have a stand-offish, untrusting relationship with their own fame. Those are often the ones I respect more, not because of that, but because their art seems more important to them than the fame and wealth. They're the ones who are more consistent in their artistic intentions and develop naturally as artists, as opposed to producing work according to what they or their contracted bosses perceive as the will of the paying public. I can think of some famous artists who seem to do both, and they might not even be doing it consciously.
anyway.. I am fully aware that I'll never be a marketable artist and that's fine with me. I'm even sort of ok with people who equate "widely marketable" with "good". Though I think there are a lot of reasons that people "get big" that have nothing to do with their ability or vision. Value is defined as many things to many people. And people "consume" art/music/films/etc. for all sorts of reasons that I personally wish had nothing to do with the valuation of art (that's another matter).
If people think that my work simply isn't good, that's fine. It has never stopped me from doing it and it never will stop. So why even post online if only ~6 people seem to actually like what I do?
I suppose I'm affected by the idea of leaving something behind that will outlive me (though I'm not convinced things that go online are any more permanent than I am). I'm also driven by the "publish or perish" idea from academia, the riddle of "if a tree falls in the woods..", and... yes... those ~6 dear people.
No comments:
Post a Comment