The Human Condition

"Writing is a form of therapy; sometimes I wonder how all those, who do not write, compose, or paint can manage to escape the madness, the melancholia, the panic fear, which is inherent in a human condition."--Graham Greene

I don't wanna grow up

"Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up."--Pablo Picasso

The Well Lived Life

"Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art.... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival. " — C.S. Lewis

Gift-nature of art

I have an on going (at this point about 5 year long) discussion about what art is with a friend. My current working definition is that art, at least good art (I know that phrase brings up an entirely new discussion, but for my purposes here I mean art that had the ability to speak to and touch some people beyond their own time), must do three things; it must draw on or respond to art that came before it, it must address or speak to issues of its own time, and it must contain something from the artist, a spark of their own creativity.

This last component however, implies that art is something more, that it transcends mere technical skill. As Tolkien puts it in "A Leaf by Niggle" it is a gift. The nature of the gift however is complex. It is a gift from Niggle to others; in a utilitarian sense his neighbor Parish uses the canvas to patch his roof. However, his painting also touches some people, changes them and how they see the world, and so is a gift to them as well. Yet the picture is a gift to Niggle as well. While he could not fully capture it, what he was painting was a vision of somewhere that touched him, a perfect place that to which he had never been. This place does eventually becomes real and provided healing for Niggle and his neighbor. Discussing the painting Parish says, "But it did not look like this then, not real." "No, it was only a glimpse then," said the man; "but you might have caught the glimpse, if you had ever thought it worth while to try." As a glimpse of somewhere else, of something else that surpasses the human experience, the picture was a gift to Niggle, changing him and how he viewed the world.

In Tolkien's work this sense of gift is not confined to art--the world itself is a gift and the people in it bound by gift giving,/gift receiving relationships. One of the most explicit is Galadriel's parting gifts to the fellowship. Everything she gives to the fellowship was made by her and her household and is something particular to her, things the fellowship could not have found elsewhere. The cloaks were made by her and her weavers, the light caught from her mirror, strands of her own hair--all of these are gifts which contain a bit of herself. Moreover, they were all given freely, they do not put the recipient into debt nor does she ever expect repayment, and by their nature they serve to help and at times free their owner.

So art in some way is meant to serve others and not advantage the artist, for it was a gift to him as well. I am not totally sure where to go with this thought, or exactly how it fits into my overall definition of art. That is part of what makes art so powerful-can can touch and effect us so strongly, yet it is difficult to articulate where this power comes from. As alluded to before, it mirrors the order of the world, which in creation contains something of its Maker and was intended as a free gift to humanity.

And there's this burning, like theres always been

"I hope you read some fine books and kiss someone who thinks you're wonderful, and don't forget to make some art -- write or draw or build or sing or live as only you can."--Neil's journal

Look again

"Life isn't a support system for art. It is the other way around." --Stephen King

We shall overcome their power!

First off the title of this post has an exclamation point in it. This is in the attempt to demonstrate the passion with which the line is being said. But I think that, at least in my eyes, this mark of feeling has been altered from what it should be and has been transformed into something on the verge of being superficial. This exclamation mark therefore fails to capture my intended meaning, which causes me to Wonder why? It is a truly remarkable symbol, one meant to evoke a feeling of power and wonder. Yet this feeling can be excitement, joy, anger, and courage, or it can simply be used to show increased volume. Even when one simply looks at it the exclamation point is incredible, unlike any other symbol. Come to think of it, all the letters of our language are remarkable. Each being different than the others and representing a different meaning with its own distinct sounds and distinctive characteristics. But how we view these letters are derived from our experience with them; how they are used in reading and writing. When we listen to intelligent people and read eloquent and thoughtful works we are influenced. This is the power of words. The power which all the distinct letters are able to create when put into words. Words which arranged are capable of unbelievable things. Therefore I deem that the ways in which I have seen the exclamation point being used are what has led to its loss of value. And the way to remedy the situation, to give ! back its grandeur is to use it intelligently and passionately. The exclamation point must be reclaimed!

I have no idea where that last paragraph came from, I simply wrote. But now on to the actual subject of this post; art. Both Enjolras and Robert Owen Hood have recently spoken on the subject, so I feel obliged to do the same. Art is the closest representation of dreams. It is the attempted perfection of persons, and the aspirations of all people. Art gives us an opportunity to portray things in the way which they actually appear. "Artists use art to tell the lies that politicians try to cover up." It is where we create, it is one of the ways with which we can we make a difference in this world. And we must choose to make a difference, we must choose to fight. People must take initiative and change. We must vote and we must care or we shall fail our potential. We will cease to create and art will die. We must care about events such as that of yesterday; November Fifth, and like Guy Fawkes we must try to make a difference.

The change it had to come

This past weekend has been tumultuous, bring up many things to ponder and not nearly enough time in which to ponder them. So in attempt to order my thoughts and to test if the unified thread running through all of them works, this post will be an amalgamation of some of these musings.

I feel as though we have just begun to scratch the surface in our discussion of art and I believe and stand by everything that has been said. However, I am reading Stephen King's memoir "On Writing" in which he makes the point that "Life isn't a support system for art. It is the other way around." Art should be an end not a means to an end. But it cannot stop there, art should not be a dead thing that once created lies there, it must give back and go beyond itself. Art should engender a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment in the artist, it should evoke a sense of wonder and greater understanding of the world, or at least of its mystery, in the viewer and it should spark a dialogue between other artists. While the existence of art enriches the world on its own it should also create an environment and a mindset which fosters discussion, and wonder and speaks to the human soul. Art is one of the tools which change the world.

Today is the 5th of November a day other parts of the world celebrate as Guy Fawkes day. It is a day largely given over to bonfires and fireworks, which are celebrations of a concept. While the holiday was begun to celebrate the survival of Parliament and the foiling of a serious terrorist plot the day is named after the leader of the conspiracy Guy Fawkes, and in a way is celebration of him. In his journal several years ago Neil Gaiman said this about the day, "As a boy I wasn't sure whether we were meant to be celebrating Guy Fawkes as someone who tried to change the system by doing something about it, or whether it was just that the English love a good loser. When I grew up I realised that it was a thanksgiving for the fact that the Parliament had not been exploded." The first reason though is an equally good reason for a celebration and Guy Fawkes today should serve as a reminder to citizens that if they want the world to change, they need to take steps to make it occur. I am not advocating blowing things up or terrorism of any kind. However, our country was founded in the spirit of activism with people upset by unreasonable taxes doing something about it. Women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, ending American involvement in Vietnam-- all of these were issues spear pointed by citizen activism.

That brings me to my last point. I am sorry for bringing this up, because after 2 years of constant campaigning I am sure this is the last thing you want to hear about, but I am, like everyone else, going to comment on the election. In all of the campaigning and the speeches and the promises no politician dared to ask something of the American people. No one said "the economy is going through a rough patch, we may have to gird our belts for a while" or "if we are going to beat poverty, violence, and a poor education we need each and everyone of you to go out into your community and do what you can" or "it may be hard for people for people in those industries but if we want to stay competitive in a changing world we are going to need change and reform in farming, energy and education." Both candidates made populist promises pandering to special interest groups instead of offering a realistic prognosis of the situation and calling on the ingenuity and resilience of the American people to step up and solve those challenges. In fact, no president has do so since Kennedy with his famous inaugural address telling people to "ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country." If you expect nothing from the people than that is exactly what you will get.

Someone once said, and I am convinced that it was James Madison but I cannot find the quote so I will attribute it to the all knowing someone, "We are politicians and soldiers so that our children can become doctors and scientists and their children can be poets and artists." We need people working at every one of these levels to bring about the change necessary, from people who deal with making sure that the basic needs are met for everyone to people who nourish our souls with poetry and painting. And we need these people to inspire us to go beyond ourselves and make our own contributions to the world. As Gandhi said, "Be the change you wish to see."

We need only await it with confidence and receive it with gratitude.

"Throughout the world sounds one long cry from the heart of the artist: 'Give me the chance to do my very best.'"
-- Babette's Feast

The oppoiste of war isn't peace, it's creation

Both Alyosha and Enjolras have brought up topics that I find fascination, love to ponder, and could discuss for hours, and they know it. However, I also am going to wait to broach the almost limitless topic of music.

I have been indoctrinated at various points in my education, and some of you know by whom, to believe that every conflict, every relationship, every moment in History can be explained in terms of economics. While I do not completely buy this, Enjolras's lament over the lack of creativity in today's society instantly made me think of Marx's theory of the worker and the effects of the industrialization and modern economics on the theory of the person.

Now don't worry, this is not going to turn into a complex discussion about economic theory. Marx, however, believed that people did not work to live but rather lived to work--humans by definition were workers, cogs in the economic machine. This idea has been so integrated into modern thought that many politicians and economists, in America at least, would be horrified if they realized they had bought a piece of Marxist philosophy so whole heartily.

This is one of the primary things that has removed the idea of creation from everyday life. A single person is rarely responsible for a product from start to finish anymore. Instead, they are another point on the assembly line, mass producing identical products that are devoid of all craft. Work, the act of creating something and of providing for yourself and your family has a salvific value. The shift from people as craftsmen to people as workers has done its best to remove the human dignity and the value of the product.

In particular, this is can seen in the arts, where it is almost impossible now to earn a living do art for arts sake. There is no obvious economic value in painting pictures, writing poetry, or composing music so these have been subordinated to other ends. Now if you want to study art it is usually in terms of a career such as graphic design or interior decorating.

Creating something for no commercial purpose does, like Enjolras said, bring a certain amount of satisfaction. More than that however, by creating something is a way for man to imitate his creator-it is a form of prayer and something that so desperately needs to be reclaimed in modern society. So bake an pie, knit a sweater, paint a picture and when ever possible support those who are craftsmen rather than huge corporate chains.

the answer is blowin' in the wind

Sorry Aloysha, I am not going to talk about music, not yet anyways.

Yesterday the weather was very angry, or at least frustrated. The wind seemed like it was trying to blow the world away and at the time this seemed like an excellent idea. I felt trapped in the details of life. I had to go to work, then spend hours doing homework when all I really wanted to do was go for a walk, in the wind and dancing leaves, and then curl up in bed with the The Graveyard Book. But I did not think my Professors would agree that this was an acceptable alternative.

I felt like the windstorm, angry at the world, trying to it blow away, destroy it. The wind has a freedom that is too often lost in everyday life. And I'm free, like the wind, like I'm gonna live forever. It's a feeling time can never take away. It's so easy to get sucked into a routine and have your life consumed by details. This goes back to the idea of contemplation that Aloysha and Robert Owen Hood have been talking about. It's not always that we don't appreciate the beauty around us or know that it's there, although sadly this is often true, but that we don't have time for it right now.

One of the problems with the modernity of our lives is how much it removes us from our world. It is easy to live out a day without any interaction with nature. Our technology, our cities, our advanced methods of transportation all make our lives more convenient, but in the process make it easier for us to take for granted things like trees, grass, the smell of a forest or the sound of water trickling down rocks. We have to designate time now if we want to experience this, have to go out of our way, and too often our busy lives make this difficult. And so we do it less, forget it, and replace it with television.

But there is another component to this, one I think was more related to my frustration the other day. I wanted to destroy because I felt I could not create. There is not any time in my life right now to devote to creating anything. Cooking, gardening, knitting, all simple acts, but each has a product. I am spending so much time studying and advancing my mind that sometimes I feel like I am not utilizing it. This raises the question is there a practical aspect to contemplation? I do not think there has to be, but I think man requires this, needs to feel he is contributing to the earth in a somewhat tangible way. There is a satisfaction in being able to look at something and know that you made it. Ultimately this is realized in art. Man attempting to perfect his creations, achieve a better painting, a more beautiful song, each reflecting his world, himself, his humanity.