Fascinating article. I’ve saved a couple of your linked articles to go back to. This is the quote that got me:
“Let me put the point I’m making another way: art is the vehicle with which we reveal who we really are to the world.
That’s terrifying, I know, but it’s the only way to create something true, something that might change others, something that endures beyond our brief time on this Pale Blue Dot.”
I don’t think I’d ever be brave enough to even attempt anything that would be seen by anyone other than me.
If you've found a way to express yourself that brings you joy and/or catharsis and/or understanding of yourself and/or the world, then mission accomplished!
Thank you! And yeah, that Brando quote was the key to the whole thing for me. The reality is, I just keep folder after folder of notes and thoughts on questions and ideas as I have them. But until I find that one thing that really ties them together, I don't even bother trying to write it.
I think this article is a great counterpoint to discussions around the idea of the intentional fallacy. I think the balance between what a piece of art means to its creator and its recipient is a really interesting one. I really like the idea that art provides insight into the mind which created it without that necessarily being the message you take away in its appreciation. That might not be exactly what you were saying, but it’s my take away. Thank you.
I think that art is many things. It's autobiography, for example. It's a conversation with an audience. It's a mirror that often condemns that audiences. It's entertainment. And very often, the artist has almost no control over any of that because the audience is just going to do what it's going to do. Their interpretation of your work often has no relationship to your motivation or intention. In short: art is trippy.
No, not at all. I think some of my favorite pieces of art are bigger than the artists who created them. I don't think it's in my power to control that experience as much as hope for the best. Then again, I've never had a Far Right gang of bigots reinterpret my work like the Wachowskis have had done to THE MATRIX. Maybe I would be more concerned in that case.
That’s a great point. I guess you can’t control who is reinterpreting your work and that has the potential to be disconcerting to say the least. I was thinking more about the way that an individual’s personal experience can affect the way they respond to art, much in the way you discussed in your piece about “It’s a Wonderful Life,” mentioned above. This is one of my favourite things about art, that everyone brings something different to the table in their interpretation, but I can see how, as a writer, that might not always be desirable.
I think the audience is probably too multifaceted for me to anticipate. Some things I write speak more to this type of person and others to another type. Those same people change over the years. Cultural backgrounds change how people interpret anything I write. Something that means one thing to me is written abstractly enough that it means something else to another person. My head starts to hurt after a while, so I try to focus on what I want to say and create very specific spaces for audiences to insert themselves into the conversation. They get to determine what their part of the conversation is. Just note: this is a very broad conversation and one I've never worked out how to speak more precisely about. I should probably do that.
So true. I'm driven to create as a way of processing turmoil and trauma, and expressing my inner world. My art is deeply autobiographical, but apparently completely hidden at the same time. There's safety in that. (Also because it doesn't have a big reach, lol.)
For whatever reason, I still love Woody Allen's movies, despite everything... but I can't bear to listen to any Michael Jackson music.
What a great post. 100% agree. Every book I've written definitely holds a part of me from that time, and they're only becoming more autobiographical as I get older.
Thanks, Harvey. My writing has taken a similarly increasingly autobiographical path, which is probably a subject I'll write about soon. I think it's different for everyone, when and how they begin to find themselves in their work and even what the work means to them.
Same here. But I think this is true for many artists. We progress through mimicry and escapism to something true and, for us as individuals, transcendent in some way.
Thank you, I'm glad anything about it resonated with you. Congratulations on the publication of your own book. Do feel free to drop its name and link here for people as they pass through!
Fascinating article. I’ve saved a couple of your linked articles to go back to. This is the quote that got me:
“Let me put the point I’m making another way: art is the vehicle with which we reveal who we really are to the world.
That’s terrifying, I know, but it’s the only way to create something true, something that might change others, something that endures beyond our brief time on this Pale Blue Dot.”
I don’t think I’d ever be brave enough to even attempt anything that would be seen by anyone other than me.
If you've found a way to express yourself that brings you joy and/or catharsis and/or understanding of yourself and/or the world, then mission accomplished!
Have come to this one late (apologies, so many email newsletters in my inbox!). Love it. Love that Brando quote.
Thank you! And yeah, that Brando quote was the key to the whole thing for me. The reality is, I just keep folder after folder of notes and thoughts on questions and ideas as I have them. But until I find that one thing that really ties them together, I don't even bother trying to write it.
I think this article is a great counterpoint to discussions around the idea of the intentional fallacy. I think the balance between what a piece of art means to its creator and its recipient is a really interesting one. I really like the idea that art provides insight into the mind which created it without that necessarily being the message you take away in its appreciation. That might not be exactly what you were saying, but it’s my take away. Thank you.
I think that art is many things. It's autobiography, for example. It's a conversation with an audience. It's a mirror that often condemns that audiences. It's entertainment. And very often, the artist has almost no control over any of that because the audience is just going to do what it's going to do. Their interpretation of your work often has no relationship to your motivation or intention. In short: art is trippy.
Absolutely. As a writer do you find that frustrating?
No, not at all. I think some of my favorite pieces of art are bigger than the artists who created them. I don't think it's in my power to control that experience as much as hope for the best. Then again, I've never had a Far Right gang of bigots reinterpret my work like the Wachowskis have had done to THE MATRIX. Maybe I would be more concerned in that case.
That’s a great point. I guess you can’t control who is reinterpreting your work and that has the potential to be disconcerting to say the least. I was thinking more about the way that an individual’s personal experience can affect the way they respond to art, much in the way you discussed in your piece about “It’s a Wonderful Life,” mentioned above. This is one of my favourite things about art, that everyone brings something different to the table in their interpretation, but I can see how, as a writer, that might not always be desirable.
I think the audience is probably too multifaceted for me to anticipate. Some things I write speak more to this type of person and others to another type. Those same people change over the years. Cultural backgrounds change how people interpret anything I write. Something that means one thing to me is written abstractly enough that it means something else to another person. My head starts to hurt after a while, so I try to focus on what I want to say and create very specific spaces for audiences to insert themselves into the conversation. They get to determine what their part of the conversation is. Just note: this is a very broad conversation and one I've never worked out how to speak more precisely about. I should probably do that.
So true. I'm driven to create as a way of processing turmoil and trauma, and expressing my inner world. My art is deeply autobiographical, but apparently completely hidden at the same time. There's safety in that. (Also because it doesn't have a big reach, lol.)
For whatever reason, I still love Woody Allen's movies, despite everything... but I can't bear to listen to any Michael Jackson music.
Great article.
I sometimes think art becomes more mysterious the more specific it becomes...which might explain what you're describing, too.
What a great post. 100% agree. Every book I've written definitely holds a part of me from that time, and they're only becoming more autobiographical as I get older.
Thanks, Harvey. My writing has taken a similarly increasingly autobiographical path, which is probably a subject I'll write about soon. I think it's different for everyone, when and how they begin to find themselves in their work and even what the work means to them.
Yeah. For me I think it's moved more from childhood fantasy to escapism to therapy. I'm not religious but I'm inclined to say more sacred.
Same here. But I think this is true for many artists. We progress through mimicry and escapism to something true and, for us as individuals, transcendent in some way.
Indeed indeed
Thank you, I'm glad anything about it resonated with you. Congratulations on the publication of your own book. Do feel free to drop its name and link here for people as they pass through!