---
I once heard a painter say, I think it was in The Shock of the New, that the urge to paint is the urge to match
the beauty of flowers. He said it’s clear we’ll never come close. Maybe we just
don’t have flowers in us. Or if we do, they’re bursts of artillery fire, or the
questionable blossom of an earmouse, or an efflorescence of leveraged buyouts branching
through the ramifying layers of Sony or Safeway or MGM.
As for representation,
I say the Impressionists were closest to getting it right. They represented a
flower by not representing it. The same principle works for writing. So many
ideas and experiences don’t survive direct contact with words. A friend once
said that I work by surrounding an idea with literary ornament - I make Faberge
eggs, he said: the fragile shell is scarcely touched, but it’s there for the
reader nevertheless (we’re told show,
don’t tell; sometimes, though, it’s best not to show at all).
But is all this what I
set out to say? I don’t know. Whatever it is I’m trying to say, maybe I’m
trying to surround it, orbit in on the flower inside the egg without ever
touching i
I know I want to say that
I love art. High art and dirty art. The beautiful and the grotesque, far more
closely related to each other than the merely pretty or tasteful.
What else do I love?
The merry hideousness of a rundown circus.
The feeling that the
acrobats and clowns, no matter how they try to glitz up their acts, belong to
something as old as the tarot deck.
Brittle circus merriment, I love that. A bit
alarming, like the manic
behaviour of someone teetering on the shivery edge of something terrible…
The sacred and the profane… Profound nonsense… The courageous coward in
Huysmans’ Against Nature… Fellini
telling Nino Rota to compose a carnival tune that’s sad and happy at once… And
Rota getting it right…
Lies that tell truths…
That’s what I’m trying to find, always. That’s
art…
What don’t I love? What’s not art?
I’m unmoved by the feats of athletes and
businesspeople whose supposed greatness comes from measuring themselves against
the achievements of others.
Measure yourself against bigger things, that’s
what I say - against the world, the universe - people are afraid that doing it
will make them smaller, but it doesn’t, it makes them bigger.
The anxiety that crackles around me whenever I
write, I dislike that. That’s not art (not anti-art, which is Dada, which is
art). It’s the unvoiced voice of I don’t know who telling me I’ve wasted my
life pursuing this thing.
Here I am, struggling for money, in dodgy
health, fabulously obscure - and still I keep doing it, hopelessly… Wile E.
Coyote, super genius… How many times have I plummeted, whistling, into the
canyon this year?
But still I keep going after it, the
Roadrunner, the flower inside the egg; because what’s the point of a goal that
can easily be achieved?
That’s what I tell the anxiety, that’s how I
silence the world that loves athletes and money. And I keep on writing…
The carrot will always be there. The classic target-that-can-never-be-reached,
always ahead, drawing me on, mulishly.
I’ll never reach it, and that’s the way it’s
meant to be. That’s art…
2 comments:
Great, it's the sad reality that to make a living from art would be nice, so money comes into the picture.Maybe the true sisyphusian of art is having to produce it regardless of external pressures funding or encouragement. That being said your writing is good and does deserve to be published.
The problem with being paid for art is that you can never guarantee it will happen, which leaves the artist having to decide between a) 'cashing in' on a currently popular trend at the expense of their artistic sensibilities (dodgy), b) continuing to produce art that satisfies their artistic sensibilities but which they might not get paid for (poorhouse this way!) or getting out of the game altogether (Public Service). IMHO, a true artist will always opt for the 'art first' route, but the personal cost can become too much to bear in the long run.
Post a Comment