Notes towards a Manifesto
Sep. 8th, 2005 03:22 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mirrorshardAll the best artists have manifestos[1], and generally rather a lot of the less good ones have too, so I really should get around sometime to a statement of what this lot - http://www.livejournal.com/users/mirrorshard/70218.html for example - means.
Mind you, the standard artistic disclaimers apply, and there are a few questions that must, for the sake of tradition, be asked and answered.
Firstly, is it Art? - Yes, it is, because I say it is. If you don't take my word for it, I don't see why you've bothered to read thus far.
Secondly, does it mean anything? - Only to the extent that the concept of "meaning" is a useful one. I don't want to get all deconstructionalist on you[2], but when you sit down to eat of the bread of truth, you have to bring your own cutlery, and if you forgot to bring a knife you won't be able to get anything you can't swallow whole. It means what it means to you, and if it doesn't mean anything, don't bother looking.
Thirdly, is it important? - I doubt it, somehow. But then I also don't think that's measurable in any sensible way.
Okay, so now that's over-ish, what's it all about? What am I after when I do this?
First up, I enjoy it, there's a lot of pleasure to be had focusing on making the design work. My models have assured me it isn't entirely unpleasant from their viewpoint either.
Secundus, it's a good way to get used to working on interesting topologies and textures, rather than canvas or paper.
Tertius, it's a good discipline to know your work isn't going to be permanent, and to watch how different media change and decay over time and use.
d) Working on people gives more or less the most certainty that you can get that your work will be seen and thought about, that it does people some good, rather than sitting there unappreciated and unregarded.
lemon) And now we move to the conclusion, or at least to what looks like a conclusion to me. If I do a static piece, I can control everything about it, if I'm willing to put in the effort to understand and work with the materials I choose, and make sure it's displayed right. Working on people brings in a whole new dimension of interest that isn't subject to my notorious control-freak tendencies. Of course, you could argue that Kake (or Emma, or whomsoever may model for me in the future[3]) comes under the heading of "materials", but people aren't all that predictable, and it's sort of hard to display art when the model's complaining about cramp and rope burns.
More later, probably.
[1] Not actually true. Whilst it's true that artists tend to think rather a lot, they aren't always all that good at verbalizing it rather than making art. And, of course, many artists lived and worked without ever stating their aims explicitly, since in many cases they really didn't want to be seen as anything other than a craftsman. It's possible that the fall back of the craftsman ethos has resulted in a lot of artists placing less importance on process and more on meaning.
[2] Since it's mostly just philosophical masturbation, but when you have no choice but to look at fundamental usages and relationships, it's sort of unavoidable. Sorry and all that.
[3] More models always wanted, male or female, so long as you have enough smoothish skin to take paint or ink. Nudity not required at all, especially if I don't know you well already.
[7] Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and persuade themselves that they have a better idea. (John Ciardi)[8]
[8] Yes, this[7] is recursive. I just wanted to put the quotation in.
Mind you, the standard artistic disclaimers apply, and there are a few questions that must, for the sake of tradition, be asked and answered.
Firstly, is it Art? - Yes, it is, because I say it is. If you don't take my word for it, I don't see why you've bothered to read thus far.
Secondly, does it mean anything? - Only to the extent that the concept of "meaning" is a useful one. I don't want to get all deconstructionalist on you[2], but when you sit down to eat of the bread of truth, you have to bring your own cutlery, and if you forgot to bring a knife you won't be able to get anything you can't swallow whole. It means what it means to you, and if it doesn't mean anything, don't bother looking.
Thirdly, is it important? - I doubt it, somehow. But then I also don't think that's measurable in any sensible way.
Okay, so now that's over-ish, what's it all about? What am I after when I do this?
First up, I enjoy it, there's a lot of pleasure to be had focusing on making the design work. My models have assured me it isn't entirely unpleasant from their viewpoint either.
Secundus, it's a good way to get used to working on interesting topologies and textures, rather than canvas or paper.
Tertius, it's a good discipline to know your work isn't going to be permanent, and to watch how different media change and decay over time and use.
d) Working on people gives more or less the most certainty that you can get that your work will be seen and thought about, that it does people some good, rather than sitting there unappreciated and unregarded.
lemon) And now we move to the conclusion, or at least to what looks like a conclusion to me. If I do a static piece, I can control everything about it, if I'm willing to put in the effort to understand and work with the materials I choose, and make sure it's displayed right. Working on people brings in a whole new dimension of interest that isn't subject to my notorious control-freak tendencies. Of course, you could argue that Kake (or Emma, or whomsoever may model for me in the future[3]) comes under the heading of "materials", but people aren't all that predictable, and it's sort of hard to display art when the model's complaining about cramp and rope burns.
More later, probably.
[1] Not actually true. Whilst it's true that artists tend to think rather a lot, they aren't always all that good at verbalizing it rather than making art. And, of course, many artists lived and worked without ever stating their aims explicitly, since in many cases they really didn't want to be seen as anything other than a craftsman. It's possible that the fall back of the craftsman ethos has resulted in a lot of artists placing less importance on process and more on meaning.
The manifesto has always, since its historical use in the declaration of war or revolution, been about 'making enemies'. - Julian Hanna, http://www.arts.ed.ac.uk/europgstudies/rprojects/avant-garde/Edin%20abstract%2019.htm
[2] Since it's mostly just philosophical masturbation, but when you have no choice but to look at fundamental usages and relationships, it's sort of unavoidable. Sorry and all that.
[3] More models always wanted, male or female, so long as you have enough smoothish skin to take paint or ink. Nudity not required at all, especially if I don't know you well already.
[7] Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and persuade themselves that they have a better idea. (John Ciardi)[8]
[8] Yes, this[7] is recursive. I just wanted to put the quotation in.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-10 12:24 am (UTC)