leonardcohenforum.com

Casey Butler wrote: There are Rembrandts and there are Jackson Pollocks, there are Renoirs and Picassos, and Vincents in between.

And it's all of the highest quality.

That's why it's cut first by the boards.

Casey

I don't know what you're saying here. If any of these guys "threw stuff down," it was Jack the Dripper, but even he took time to learn with some precision how he wanted to drip and splash. (Did you know he was a chain smoker? One of his works at the Buffalo MFA has a matchstick in it because he threw it at the painting after lighting a smoke.) One thing I like about Jack's works is how different they are from each other.

The works of those you site put the elements of design to use. They all made mistakes. Something can only be beautiful if it's flawed, but there are things that are pleasing esthetically: composition, color scheme, line, perspective, texture...

Just because they're the Greats, doesn't mean they were born that way.

and finally -
the original original draft of this short short story is no longer in existence, but I suppose it went something like:

I was biking down the rec way one afternoon and this guy came out and totally creeped me out. weird, man.

the rest was added to make it colorful.

The idea that you throw something down and it's a finished, high-quality poem (or painting or sculpture...) seems insulting to the artist to me.

Manna.

My dad would say to me,in his more philosophical moments;
"It is better to shut up and look a fool
rather than to speak up and prove it."

I never really agreed with his perspective. But sometimes I wonder.

Have you ever come across Japanese calligraphy?

"When done properly the practice of calligraphy becomes a conversation with the true self. When writing with the brush the mind becomes calm and pure, the intuitive force is released and you discover your inner silent space. It is a fine art feeling that points to the true self and meets with the message of art, the refinement and perfection of the human mind."
(http://www.theartofcalligraphy.com/)

Just because they're the Greats, doesn't mean they were born that way.

Manna

This is a different argument/position you are taking now, manna, to;

The idea that you throw something down and it's a finished, high-quality poem (or painting or sculpture...) seems insulting to the artist to me.

just a point of order.

hi mat,
A person doesn't pick up a brush one day and know how to write calligraphy, beautifully or otherwise. I would venture that, for the person who said what you've quoted, calligraphy serves for him similarly to a mantra. But as for what he said, I respond with, "Oh, brother."

As for your second post, I'm not sure what you're saying.

"The Greats aren't born that way" is about the artist.
"Suggesting that you can throw up and call it a great work is insulting to artists" is about how the work comes about.

You seem to be suggesting that the greater the artist, the less work he does for a piece. There may be some truth to that, but it is because even greatness (not born with it) gets honed and practiced. Ideas and techniques develop over time.

When I learned my first banjo tune, it took about a month, and I played it note-for-note as it was shown to me. Nowadays I can learn a tune in about fifteen minutes, and I know how and where to mess with what I'm shown. And sometimes playing a tune gets meditative (picking = mantra?) and I lose track of how long I've been playing, and if you want to talk about finding that inner thingy, the true self, your perfect, pure humanness, go ahead, but that jive's not for me.

Manna wrote:

Casey Butler wrote: There are Rembrandts and there are Jackson Pollocks, there are Renoirs and Picassos, and Vincents in between.

And it's all of the highest quality.

That's why it's cut first by the boards.

Casey

I don't know what you're saying here.

I was agreeing with you that arts get cut first because of what you might call the weird spontaneous stuff.

Administrators and boards could care less about art or individualism when it comes to parsing out money, since their job is ultimately to force the individual to conform to society or to the society invented by whatever institution they're responsible for administrating.

The very nature of "the arts" - certainly "liberal arts" - goes against the interest of those in charge of funding them.

The "Weird spontaneous" stuff is usually their excuse - but I think it's anything unique that pulls their chain.

Weird, spontaneous, unique stuff has to prove itself profitable before it catches the eye of people who think money.

Just because they're the Greats, doesn't mean they were born that way.

Of course they were born that way, that's what they decided to become? They just didn't let others tell them they weren't born that way, that they must follow this or that formula or framework - or "form". Paint itself is enough of a restriction for expression, don't you think? Why look for more...

And when all is said and done no matter how beauty comes about it's beautiful, so we're all right.

Casey

Manna wrote:and finally -
the original original draft of this short short story is no longer in existence, but I suppose it went something like:

I was biking down the rec way one afternoon and this guy came out and totally creeped me out. weird, man.

the rest was added to make it colorful.

I'd call that your outline, the idea, not the first draft. Your intention was to express an idea, that's where the artist kicks in.

The colorful part that is your expression of your idea was your first draft then.

I have seen it, and through my eyes it's more the work of an artist than the pared down version.

What you think hardly matters... <grin>

Casey

The colorful part that is your expression of your idea was your first draft then.

I have seen it, and through my eyes it's more the work of an artist than the pared down version.

not so fast, there, Mr.
There was a handful of full-length versions that don't exist anymore either, and the draft I'm playing with right now is the longest yet. For a long time, it still started with "I was biking on the rec way one day..." That much I remember. A terrible opening.

ps. 40 miles today - woohoo!

I hope you'll post what's next.

40 miles is ... further than I can drive these days, what with gas prices being what they are.

40 miles is further than I've ever ridden a bicycle in my entire life - cumulative.

40 miles is more impressive every time I type it.

40 miles...

Nobody's ever made me feel this old with a "ps".

Casey

I'm in training for a century ride.
Maybe I'll make a post about it in Everything Else.

My view:

For me, what makes art be "art" are the original concept, the ideas for approach, and the actual application of those. The necessary tweaking along the way [editing] as those are being carried out doesn't invalidate its essence; which was already established, via the first three variables, and are what the individual artist brings to the process of creation.

I guess some of these could be 'farmed out' [the artist comes up with the concept and how it's be carried out, and then someone else does it]; however, the 'best' and most original, are where one person accomplishes all of those alone. Editing is simply a necessary function for a lot of reasons.


~ Lizzy

Your right Lizzy, editing doen't take away from the art in fact I'd go farther and say that revision/editing is not just a function, it is part of the art.
It's the fine lines the small details that gives beauty to the shape, but to be honest I think I'm just repeating what's already been said.

Yes, "necessary function" does sound rather mundane, doesn't it; in fact, I'd say that at times editing can become a very inspired process in itself. I just had to finally weigh in on it. This is one of the few threads I'm managing to read it, so thought I might as well give my two cents on the issue. Not to be redundant, of course .


~ Lizzy

lizzytysh wrote:For me, what makes art be "art" are the original concept, the ideas for approach, and the actual application of those. The necessary tweaking along the way [editing] as those are being carried out doesn't invalidate its essence; which was already established, via the first three variables, and are what the individual artist brings to the process of creation.

I suppose the point would be editing based on the advice of critics.

I think that's politics, not art. Unless the corruption of art is considered art.

I wouldn't know...

Casey

Hi Casey ~

Even though sometimes editing suggestions can be worded as though they sound mandatory for the piece to be successful, I think that typically there's an implicit ~ if not stated, though likely not each time ~ understanding between the creator and the 'editor' [volunteer or paid]. In other words, a "take it or leave it" attitude. Sometimes, the original writer [or creator] can struggle with trying to get something right... or simply not notice that something could be and would work better if it was slightly ~ or more majorly ~ rearranged to make it smoother [or whatever]. It's still the ultimate choice of the creator to use the suggestion[s] or ignore it[them].

There are writers who rely on their editors to clean up their pieces; yet, the piece in question wouldn't exist were it not for the one who conceived the idea and 'did' it. I don't feel it becomes a collaboration at that point. The input needs to be more substantive for that to happen... and really is a matter of exchange throughout the process of creation.

It's more pure if the original artist does their own editing, of course; yet, input from others doesn't corrupt the process or validity of the work. An analogy that is a bit hyperbolic, but still might work with that idea is your [or a woman] getting dressed up for an important event. From the point of hearing about it, you start thinking about what you want to wear. You may shop extensively to find exactly the right outfit [which may involve a variety of components, which have also been selected by you]... or you may have it made by a seamstress for the occasion [either through an existing pattern that you've managed to locate, or through description to the seamstress]... then, the day arrives and, perhaps, you've had your hair cut/done... you've properly groomed yourself... you've dressed yourself... and off you go. On your way out the door or upon your arrival, someone sees a piece of lint that is distracting to the whole picture of 'you' and removes it. Compliments such as "Look at you! You're a work of art!" [taking that idea to extreme, for this purpose here] ~ or "You're the picture of beauty!" In accepting that compliment, you wouldn't [or wouldn't even consider it relevant] to point to the one who removed the piece of lint and say, "Thanks to that person, I am!" or "I was until that person got involved." It's not really been a shared effort of creation; yet, that piece of lint certainly compromised the picture as a whole. Or, it may have been an upturned collar; a skewed necktie; a slip showing [in the days that women wore slips ]; or a pantscuff caught upwards on a shoe. They're 'only' details; yet, ones that interfere with the observer's appreciating or becoming 'lost' in the overall impact [and/or beauty] of the original creation. I know that true beauty reportedly requires at least one note of imperfection, and whenever I've heard that, I've thought of a person's physical beauty and the many things that could be considerd imperfections. Rather than being 'qualifying' ones, however, the ones I've noted are 'interfering' ones.

It seems that I've heard that theory apply to a person's physical presentation [such as being dressed for an occasion], as well, though... so, it's possible my whole theory could just crumble ; however, I do feel that the specific examples I've used make it hold up, in so far as I've taken it, anyway.

Some people rely heavily on their editors... yet, even so do not take all the suggestions and will argue them out tooth-and-nail... and, whichever way it ends up going, the original process of creation is presumed to have remained intact.


I'd planned to say more, but just realized I'm 10 minutes LATE for an appt.!!

Okay. I can continue with even more details now [in addition to some I've added above]. I was a copy editor for a small newspaper for awhile... and neither I nor any of those who submitted their pieces considered my editing as an interference with their creativity. When I did some theatre reviews for another small newspaper [in another state], my pieces were looked over by a copy editor, with some being edited more than others. If the changes that were made weren't sufficient to affect the 'authorship' [being written by me], my name remained at the top in the 'byline' position. If the changes were more sweeping [this happened only once], my name was placed at the end of it, since I was still an integral part of the process... but the changes were just too many to really consider it as being wholly mine.


~ Lizzy