I never intended to write this article, nor did I intend to write again so soon, the last one being something to chew on...but so much was left out in the interest of being concise, that I feel certain important angles were neglected. Being me (as I just told my wife "I have a burr in my bonnet") I just can't let it go at that.
I was discussing self-expression but without including what the story is with it. We discussed adaptation, and self-expression is one form of adaptation that we come by instinctively.
Back to nature....I saw a program on PBS several years ago having to do with bird songs and their purpose which I watched with great interest. It sparked my thinking and some ideas from that program connected with my own "puzzle" to help me explain some things.
Why do birds sing? Why do humans sing? Why does Barry Manilow sing?(good question).
It seems that birds (and mammals, and other creatures as well)...come up with creative ways to signal their own individuality to the rest of the world. Bird songs may sound all the same to us, particularly among one species, but rest assured to a bird they may be very different (individual) indeed.
Not just the songs of the birds, but all these expressions of individuality are messages to the general population about certain things. Mainly about health, fitness, intelligence...you guessed it, it's mostly about mating. The intention is to create a "quality experience" in those of the opposite sex which will render you attractive...nay irresistible to all those cuties out there. Then you can choose from among them.
So Elvis shakes his hips and croons tenderly and melts hearts...but it sounds ludicrous to think that Bach was writing and playing his clavichord to impress the chicks...though it probably worked.
No, for human beings the "quality experience" is a much broader continuum. Unlike the animals, "quality" doesn't necessarily just consist of raising offspring and bettering the race genetically.
In my own humble opinion, this is where higher functions, leading inevitably to "spirituality" begin to burst forth to enter the picture. (I am NOT taking the stand, as some might guess, of "looking down on the animals". They possess a different sort of spiritual nature, being closer in a sense to that which created them.)
I think we are starting to delineate an arena here: are artists and performers the same thing? Is an artists job just to get you excited, make you feel good, forget your troubles temporarily and then get paid for it?...Is being an entertainer a crime? As an artist should I resent performers who make me laugh, or cry etc. but don't really show me anything new, or change my being in any way?
I can't answer that. It's a free universe (to some extent), you pays your money and pick out what has meaning for you. Whether that is a lasting phenomenon, an important insight for you, opening up a very small door to a very large universe...only you can say.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
The Roots of Creativity...
I am determined to keep discussions of cosmology separate from these articles about music, but in this case it seems clearly impossible. Cosmology (or philosophy or whatever you wish to call it, though I don't like the term "philosophy") is another subject that I tend to get excited about. Almost no one wants to discuss it, maybe because it's like religion and tends to cause arguments, or maybe just because most people's interests run in a more worldly direction.
Whatever, the reason, on this subject I cannot avoid it, since in reality all subjects overlap.
The problem is I cannot really get to the bottom of the subject of creativity without a full disclosure about cosmology, and that cannot happen without permanently hijacking this blog. So keep in mind that I must make some bald-faced statements without explaining them in depth, or the experiences that lead me to those conclusions.
I have been puzzling over "what is creativity?" and "why are some people artists?" for a very long time, and I find that like most of the very basic questions about human beings, it has it's roots in nature.
Now, this is where the Cosmology comes in. Almost everything can be traced back to Nature. Yet I find that everything also seems to have a deep permanent home in the spirit, or Spirituality. The two parallel each other in everything. Hence scientists argue that "everything is physical", and religious leaders that "everything is spiritual". This has been going on for untold centuries and I refuse to interpose myself in this argument today. To keep it as simple as possible for today's article, all I can say is "both are true" and leave it at that....Disappointing, I know, but what can I say...?
In my explanation, keep it mind that I am relating this in reverse order. My thoughts on the subject did not drop out of the sky. I spent a long time "back-tracking" it to the source.
All organisms on this planet are provided with some mechanism to effect change on it's environment to enhance quality for itself, in order to benefit itself or to prolong life. This will of course, usually have consequences on other organisms around it, either negative or positive. At the same time those other organisms also are making their own changes which will either further enhance or help deter the changes made by the first-mentioned organism. The long and the short of it is that all creatures in a given environment will seek a stasis where everything is in harmony. However, this harmony is never stable, and is more of an on-going "search for stability/harmony".
The point being that all creatures develop with a capability for adaptation. And this is the key which allows us to understand human behavior; we term some people artists and others non-artists, but this is one of those unnatural divisions we humans make...Like "where does a cloud begin and end"? "When does Spring begin"?. If the calendar says "spring" and you're still freezing to death, what does that mean?
All humans possess creativity, and will usually express itself in one form or other. The prime manifestation for creativity in humans, is the desire to create and give birth to children. Nothing wrong with that, just basic human design, and for the multitude of people, that, and "nesting" (improving upon your environment....which these days consists of such things as cell-phones & cable TV) is part of that.
So you will find folks that, even though considered non-artists, will spend inordinate amounts of time & money doing landscaping, home-improvements, decorating or some such...but when they aren't just paying for these services, but feel the need or desire to do it for themselves as an expression of their own nature, haven't they crossed a line somewhere toward art?
When I first began pursuing this line of thought, it sprang from a much more limited question of "what is the difference between self-expression and art?". I couldn't stand the notion that art seemed to be a sub-category of self-expression creating the mistaken impression that art is the inferior category. Of course, I now see that art is by nature a smaller, very highly developed form of self-expression, and not inferior at all.
Also, puzzling was that some apparently selfish, obscure and enigmatic forms of self-expression occasionally pop up, hailed by some faction of supposedly educated critics as "Great Art". This is more difficult to explain, and I admit that it is perhaps some short-coming on my part. Or maybe just a case of "one being born every minute"...Like the old joke,"Wow! I don't understand it ! It must be GREAT!!"
So where is that line where adaptation/creativity/expression becomes art? Darned if I know, it's one of those unanswerable questions. But it seems to have something to do with connectivity with other human beings, the transmission of the quality experience, and perhaps even a spiritual source for your material...Just remember "popularity" and "art" are not necessarily synonymous, which brings us to the discussion of Art vs. Entertainment....but that's another story.
Whatever, the reason, on this subject I cannot avoid it, since in reality all subjects overlap.
The problem is I cannot really get to the bottom of the subject of creativity without a full disclosure about cosmology, and that cannot happen without permanently hijacking this blog. So keep in mind that I must make some bald-faced statements without explaining them in depth, or the experiences that lead me to those conclusions.
I have been puzzling over "what is creativity?" and "why are some people artists?" for a very long time, and I find that like most of the very basic questions about human beings, it has it's roots in nature.
Now, this is where the Cosmology comes in. Almost everything can be traced back to Nature. Yet I find that everything also seems to have a deep permanent home in the spirit, or Spirituality. The two parallel each other in everything. Hence scientists argue that "everything is physical", and religious leaders that "everything is spiritual". This has been going on for untold centuries and I refuse to interpose myself in this argument today. To keep it as simple as possible for today's article, all I can say is "both are true" and leave it at that....Disappointing, I know, but what can I say...?
In my explanation, keep it mind that I am relating this in reverse order. My thoughts on the subject did not drop out of the sky. I spent a long time "back-tracking" it to the source.
All organisms on this planet are provided with some mechanism to effect change on it's environment to enhance quality for itself, in order to benefit itself or to prolong life. This will of course, usually have consequences on other organisms around it, either negative or positive. At the same time those other organisms also are making their own changes which will either further enhance or help deter the changes made by the first-mentioned organism. The long and the short of it is that all creatures in a given environment will seek a stasis where everything is in harmony. However, this harmony is never stable, and is more of an on-going "search for stability/harmony".
The point being that all creatures develop with a capability for adaptation. And this is the key which allows us to understand human behavior; we term some people artists and others non-artists, but this is one of those unnatural divisions we humans make...Like "where does a cloud begin and end"? "When does Spring begin"?. If the calendar says "spring" and you're still freezing to death, what does that mean?
All humans possess creativity, and will usually express itself in one form or other. The prime manifestation for creativity in humans, is the desire to create and give birth to children. Nothing wrong with that, just basic human design, and for the multitude of people, that, and "nesting" (improving upon your environment....which these days consists of such things as cell-phones & cable TV) is part of that.
So you will find folks that, even though considered non-artists, will spend inordinate amounts of time & money doing landscaping, home-improvements, decorating or some such...but when they aren't just paying for these services, but feel the need or desire to do it for themselves as an expression of their own nature, haven't they crossed a line somewhere toward art?
When I first began pursuing this line of thought, it sprang from a much more limited question of "what is the difference between self-expression and art?". I couldn't stand the notion that art seemed to be a sub-category of self-expression creating the mistaken impression that art is the inferior category. Of course, I now see that art is by nature a smaller, very highly developed form of self-expression, and not inferior at all.
Also, puzzling was that some apparently selfish, obscure and enigmatic forms of self-expression occasionally pop up, hailed by some faction of supposedly educated critics as "Great Art". This is more difficult to explain, and I admit that it is perhaps some short-coming on my part. Or maybe just a case of "one being born every minute"...Like the old joke,"Wow! I don't understand it ! It must be GREAT!!"
So where is that line where adaptation/creativity/expression becomes art? Darned if I know, it's one of those unanswerable questions. But it seems to have something to do with connectivity with other human beings, the transmission of the quality experience, and perhaps even a spiritual source for your material...Just remember "popularity" and "art" are not necessarily synonymous, which brings us to the discussion of Art vs. Entertainment....but that's another story.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Music, please...
I am finally getting around to writing about music,both my own and music in general, which is what's it's all about. I am looking forward to this as it's a subject that still gets me excited and holds my interest, and I'm a little tired of writing about myself. Yet I can't write about music without including the subject of "songwriting" and my own views so I can't avoid it completely.
Today's subject came to my attention shortly after the completion of my first album "Circular Flight". I had a couple of friends come by and they expressed an interest in hearing it (I never push my work on anyone!) so I played it for them and they seemed pleased with the result. Of course they maybe were just being kind, I recognize that my songs are NOT everyone's cup of tea, nor do I expect them to be. My best hope is that they at least find them artfully rendered.
But they really listened to them intently, didn't talk over them, etc. However, during the song "Losing Game", during the middle passage with the lyrics "All we are, are ripples on the pond./ We dance for a time, then are gone...", one of my friends spoke up. He is both a religious and spiritual man and ventured an opinion. I don't remember his exact words but it was a vague statement something to the effect of, "Yes, but that's not the whole story...you left out something."
This statement stuck in my head, and led me down the line of thought which gave rise to this article, years later. This is not the first time I have encountered a similar point of view by non-artists and it got me thinking about what people expect from art. There are many who are deeply into art who are not artists themselves, and often expect art to lay reality (or the truth) bare before them with no pre-qualifications. As a long-time seeker after reality, I deeply empathize with them. At the same time I am forced to defend the artists, because my own experiences have taught me long ago that reality cannot be contained by any concept. And all art is, is concepts hopefully designed, at best, to point at reality, NEVER can it contain it.
Being created to point at reality, it must always be formed from a point of view. If you continue to broaden that point of view past a certain level, your artwork will lose focus, dissipate, and (eventually) cease communicating anything.
Here's another example of the problem. Picture an actor who has been selected to play the role of the villian. He is a fine actor and does a superior job with his part to the point where people start hissing him and throwing things at him when he walks down the street.
The only way he can play the part so well, is by gaining a deep understanding of the character he must play; his motivations, his weakenesses, his self-deceptions etc. In other words, the actor must be LARGER than the character. His own insights must be clearer than those of his "villian" or he cannot play that role effectively.
In the same way, the songwriter must take the viewpoint of his concept and expand it far enough for the listener to see where he stands in relation to things. You can take your listener to the edge and show him the view, but you mustn't push him off.
"Losing Game" is a prime example, but you will find a similar philosophy running throughout my work. "LG" is written from a dark but very real perspective of viewing the universe as a place of pain and hopelessness. I'm sure most people can relate to this as one of the most universal of human experiences which is always an ideal place to start with a work of art.
But (for me anyway) art is not just about voicing and mirroring back to people what they already know. (Look around at what is being put out these days & selling and you might disagree). An artist needs to take you from where you are and then show you something new. With "LG" this dark view has a few windows in it to spot a brighter place, albeit thru a glass, darkly.
So I seldom produce a negative work without a few strands of hope to grab onto. In a similar way, I don't produce a romantic or happy mood without it being tinged with some pain. This reflects my own experience of life, if not quite aimed dead-center on reality.
As John Lennon once observed, songs should NOT be intended as ultimate truth. He characterized them instead as "post cards" from the artist, saying "This is what's going on with me. How are you?"....
Today's subject came to my attention shortly after the completion of my first album "Circular Flight". I had a couple of friends come by and they expressed an interest in hearing it (I never push my work on anyone!) so I played it for them and they seemed pleased with the result. Of course they maybe were just being kind, I recognize that my songs are NOT everyone's cup of tea, nor do I expect them to be. My best hope is that they at least find them artfully rendered.
But they really listened to them intently, didn't talk over them, etc. However, during the song "Losing Game", during the middle passage with the lyrics "All we are, are ripples on the pond./ We dance for a time, then are gone...", one of my friends spoke up. He is both a religious and spiritual man and ventured an opinion. I don't remember his exact words but it was a vague statement something to the effect of, "Yes, but that's not the whole story...you left out something."
This statement stuck in my head, and led me down the line of thought which gave rise to this article, years later. This is not the first time I have encountered a similar point of view by non-artists and it got me thinking about what people expect from art. There are many who are deeply into art who are not artists themselves, and often expect art to lay reality (or the truth) bare before them with no pre-qualifications. As a long-time seeker after reality, I deeply empathize with them. At the same time I am forced to defend the artists, because my own experiences have taught me long ago that reality cannot be contained by any concept. And all art is, is concepts hopefully designed, at best, to point at reality, NEVER can it contain it.
Being created to point at reality, it must always be formed from a point of view. If you continue to broaden that point of view past a certain level, your artwork will lose focus, dissipate, and (eventually) cease communicating anything.
Here's another example of the problem. Picture an actor who has been selected to play the role of the villian. He is a fine actor and does a superior job with his part to the point where people start hissing him and throwing things at him when he walks down the street.
The only way he can play the part so well, is by gaining a deep understanding of the character he must play; his motivations, his weakenesses, his self-deceptions etc. In other words, the actor must be LARGER than the character. His own insights must be clearer than those of his "villian" or he cannot play that role effectively.
In the same way, the songwriter must take the viewpoint of his concept and expand it far enough for the listener to see where he stands in relation to things. You can take your listener to the edge and show him the view, but you mustn't push him off.
"Losing Game" is a prime example, but you will find a similar philosophy running throughout my work. "LG" is written from a dark but very real perspective of viewing the universe as a place of pain and hopelessness. I'm sure most people can relate to this as one of the most universal of human experiences which is always an ideal place to start with a work of art.
But (for me anyway) art is not just about voicing and mirroring back to people what they already know. (Look around at what is being put out these days & selling and you might disagree). An artist needs to take you from where you are and then show you something new. With "LG" this dark view has a few windows in it to spot a brighter place, albeit thru a glass, darkly.
So I seldom produce a negative work without a few strands of hope to grab onto. In a similar way, I don't produce a romantic or happy mood without it being tinged with some pain. This reflects my own experience of life, if not quite aimed dead-center on reality.
As John Lennon once observed, songs should NOT be intended as ultimate truth. He characterized them instead as "post cards" from the artist, saying "This is what's going on with me. How are you?"....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)