Jon Singer on mon 27 sep 99
I'm a bit behind in my reading, and I'm sure that at least four
people must have responded to this item already, but I can't
just let it lie.
On 25 Sept., Andrew Buck
made the following statement:
>I think that ALL art is, in a way of thinking, "masturbatory".
>Whether you are doing your art only for your own pleasure
> or you are doing it for the pleasure you get from the affect
> it has on others, it is still a calculated act of self aggrandizement.
What a jaundiced, cynical statement! Andrew seems to be seeing
the world through piss-yellow glasses. Look, some people do art
for pleasure, and some don't. Some do it because they can't stand
not to do it, and that is _not_ "a calculated act" of _any_ sort.
I know this because I've seen it -- I know several writers who
would be happy to do something else, but are driven by some
ferocious muse, and cannot stop writing even when it puts them
through the tortures of the damned. Having seen some of that
suffering, I know that Andrew has gotten his teeth around only
one of the several sides of art, and I would suggest that he expand
his view a bit. Hell, a _lot_. Art is MUCH bigger than Andrew
makes it out to be.
(I'd use potters as examples, btw, but I am fairly new to this, and
I don't know all that many potters yet.)
Just by the bye, I am not making any claims about why _I_ do
my art, if indeed "art" is the correct term for what I do -- I'll
psychoanalyze myself later, when I've got the time. Right now
I've got enough to do without worrying about my motivations.
Best --
jon
PS: "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" DEFINITELY
works. I have my own examples on my Web page, if anyone cares:
http://www.bazilians.org/area.drawing.html.
Andrew Buck on tue 28 sep 99
Jon,
No, you are the only one, so far, to reply to my comment. You did so very
quickly too, I might add. I must have hit a nerve, eh. I'm sorry if what
I said offended you in some way, however, I stand by what I said. I think
that you might have missed my point because the term "masturbatory" has
kind of a bad connotation. I am sure that it was used in the original
post for its shock value just as I did. Only I took it a little further
and included all of us in the comment. What you may not have understood
was the thought that being a "self-aggrandizing" pleasure seeker IS NOT A
BAD THING. I do not know anyone that got into working in clay because
they thought it was the "fast track" to wealth, fame maybe (how's that for
self-aggrandizement), but not wealth. Anything pleasurable can be
perverted though. The writer you used as an example seems to use writing
like a hard core drug user uses heroin. Even when they know the drug is
killing them, if you ask them, they will tell you that they are not using
it to make themselves feel bad. They do it because it makes them feel
better.
Many is the time that I have gone though a creative slump. It is
sometimes a painful thing. Then I'll do something that I feel has some
meaning, something that makes the statement I was reaching for. And I'll
feel great pleasure. I LIKE IT. And I am not ashamed of the fact that I
do it because it makes me feel good, important, and worthwhile. I am
sorry, but, ART IS NOT A SELFLESS PURSUIT. Not for me, not for you, and
not for the writer guy.
Andy Buck
Raincreek Pottery
Port Orchard, Washington
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Jon Singer wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> I'm a bit behind in my reading, and I'm sure that at least four
> people must have responded to this item already, but I can't
> just let it lie.
>
> On 25 Sept., Andrew Buck
> made the following statement:
>
> >I think that ALL art is, in a way of thinking, "masturbatory".
> >Whether you are doing your art only for your own pleasure
> > or you are doing it for the pleasure you get from the affect
> > it has on others, it is still a calculated act of self aggrandizement.
>
> What a jaundiced, cynical statement! Andrew seems to be seeing
> the world through piss-yellow glasses. Look, some people do art
> for pleasure, and some don't. Some do it because they can't stand
> not to do it, and that is _not_ "a calculated act" of _any_ sort.
>
> I know this because I've seen it -- I know several writers who
> would be happy to do something else, but are driven by some
> ferocious muse, and cannot stop writing even when it puts them
> through the tortures of the damned. Having seen some of that
> suffering, I know that Andrew has gotten his teeth around only
> one of the several sides of art, and I would suggest that he expand
> his view a bit. Hell, a _lot_. Art is MUCH bigger than Andrew
> makes it out to be.
>
> (I'd use potters as examples, btw, but I am fairly new to this, and
> I don't know all that many potters yet.)
>
> Just by the bye, I am not making any claims about why _I_ do
> my art, if indeed "art" is the correct term for what I do -- I'll
> psychoanalyze myself later, when I've got the time. Right now
> I've got enough to do without worrying about my motivations.
>
> Best --
> jon
>
> PS: "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" DEFINITELY
> works. I have my own examples on my Web page, if anyone cares:
> http://www.bazilians.org/area.drawing.html.
>
| |
|
