Friday, January 06, 2006
The Nature of Art
My friend Nikki, who is an amazing visual artist, said this about art the other day:
"People look at my drawings and say, 'Why did you decide to make that beetle blue? Beetles aren't blue.' Then I have to explain that it isn't a beetle, it's a drawing."
This makes so much sense to me. I play with magical realism and surrealism in my stories and novels, and, generally, when I'm having someone read them, they want to know why this totally unrealistic thing has happened in the middle of a realistic story. "Well, you see, this isn't a story about real life. It's not journalism, so I don't have to make sure that everything is the way it would be in the world. It's a story, and it's my story, and so I can make these characters turn colors, or ghosts could appear, or they could go away to Fairyland if I wanted them to. It's all my decision."
What I'm concerned with in my writing, prose writing, anyway, is being lucid and concise. I want to be understood, I want the reader to see the weird stuff immediately, recieve the images represented by the words in their minds' eyes, and then to read on. The surreal fails without a real; it has no rules to break. The reader should have the notion of the real world with them when they come to the story. In that way, we are already halfway to an understanding of what it is I am attempting to communicate.
The other half is that willing suspension of disbelief that makes bad movies seem very good when viewed on the giant screen at the theater. It is much easier to believe that the little girl from 'The Ring' is coming for you when you've seen it in the dark, many times larger than life, with other people who also appear to beleive. For me, this experience begins as soon as I open a book. I never question. I only move forward, and my judgement of a good or bad book relies more on how many times I had to read over difficult sections in order to grasp their meaning, or how many pages I skipped that turned out to be unneccessary, as I knew what was happening anyway. These things are errors in communication, as far as I'm concerned.
But, then again, that's the way they wanted to write it.
I think this is the core of what art is, exactly; the contrast between what is observably real in the world outside of the work of art, and what is observably real in the world within it.
// posted by Amethyst Vineyard @ 6:15 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
This a fanatstic essay, Viney. I just did a post regarding communication breakdowns myself; it is downright eerie what blogging with someone else does to a person.
I think the odds of that are pretty outrageous, given time and space constraints, not to mention that you proabbly have a much fashion sense than I do. I imagine you dress in a lot of vibrant colors, while I stopped after I found khaki and blue.
Men and their khaki and blue. Or black. There is a world of color out there, just waiting for you. I dare you to go buy a pink shirt.
I have two pink shirts. Actually, I have one, but the other one looks pink in the right light.
The surrealist Rene Magritte produced a particularly famous piece of work called The Treachery of Images (well, if you translate that into French...La Trahison des Images). It's basically a picture of a pipe, and below it Magritte painted "Ceci n'est pas une pipe.", or This Is Not A Pipe.
Ammy, ask Nikki (bless her beautiful, artistic soul) if she was ripping off a well-established concept to sound smart :D
In any case, it's an interesting paradox.
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=magritte+pipe&hl=en&hs=C25&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=ii&oi=imagest
With relation to storytelling (as, more than anything, I consider myself a storyteller) you should probably be less worried about making sense at a particular moment than making sense in the whole. Many people have a problem with what I like to call "responsible storytelling" these days. They don't establish the limits and constraints of their world, nor suggest certain vital features before the results of these features crop up.
In other words, if you're going to have a ghost suddenly appear, let your audience know (even if it is in an insignificant manner) that it is a possibility as early as possible.
The surrealist Rene Magritte produced a particularly famous piece of work called The Treachery of Images (well, if you translate that into French...La Trahison des Images). It's basically a picture of a pipe, and below it Magritte painted "Ceci n'est pas une pipe.", or This Is Not A Pipe.
Ammy, ask Nikki (bless her beautiful, artistic soul) if she was ripping off a well-established concept to sound smart :D
In any case, it's an interesting paradox.
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=magritte+pipe&hl=en&hs=C25&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=ii&oi=imagest
With relation to storytelling (as, more than anything, I consider myself a storyteller) you should probably be less worried about making sense at a particular moment than making sense in the whole. Many people have a problem with what I like to call "responsible storytelling" these days. They don't establish the limits and constraints of their world, nor suggest certain vital features before the results of these features crop up.
In other words, if you're going to have a ghost suddenly appear, let your audience know (even if it is in an insignificant manner) that it is a possibility as early as possible.
Btw, if you double-click that link a couple of times it will select even the bits that run off screen, then you can copy and paste it into your browser window.
You know, I love to be surprised by surrealistic elements in storytelling; see Muriel Spark's first novel, The Comforters. The fact is, the world I am creating in my fiction is filled with infinite possibilities, and, as long as I express them clearly, I feel no responsibility to prepare the reader for any of them. I have the first chapter of a novel I'm working on posted on here somewhere in the archives; it's in that vein.
I don't think NIkki was ripping of Magritte's non-pipe. She was speaking of her own work very personally, as she deals in images that are very real (birds, traffic lights, insects) and simply translates them into her own world, which most people don't get, and which took me a long time to get, as well.
I don't think NIkki was ripping of Magritte's non-pipe. She was speaking of her own work very personally, as she deals in images that are very real (birds, traffic lights, insects) and simply translates them into her own world, which most people don't get, and which took me a long time to get, as well.
I'm intrigued by several of the questions here. So I'll toss in something. It's hastily written and free, so I guess you get what you pay for.
"A man (or a woman) really writes for an audience of about ten persons. Of course, if others like it, that is clear gain. But if those ten are satisfied, he is content." --Alfred North Whitehead
I think everyone creates with some kind of audience in mind. If someone says they aren't, they are probably
(1) not good anyway, but might have potential. Every young artist may do this at some point, but then again, who the hell was Ezra Pound writing to most of the time? Could TS Eliot read the Chinese or Egyptian sections of Pound's work?
(2) so incredibly personal in their work that it is almost impossible to explain, yet it still speaks to many. Henry Darger's symbolism comes to mind here. He tells a very long traditional kind of narrative in a completely unique way--I mean, why do the Vivian Girls all have a penis?
(3) is or are just lying. Harmony Korine likes this one.
For me, examples help rather than discussing "surrealism" or "realism" at large. Not that I don't think that can't be productive and a lot of fun, it always seems a little unclear to me.
On the one hand, I really despise David Lynch's Lost Highway. I can more or less pinpoint the moment of irritation with Bill Pullman's character becoming Balthazar Getty's character. For me, this just doesn't work and just seems lazy or "whoa, crazy, man." However, I do like the inexplicability of Robert Blake being in more than one place at a time. i can accept that for some reason. Hmmm...doppelgangers...
On the other hand, I won't even pretend to comprehend every aspect of Lynch's Eraserhead but, for me, the whole thing works even though it goes way beyond the quirks of Lost Highway. It's Bosch, French New Wave, film noir, and more and none of these at the same time.
And no matter what Amethyst says, I can't think of an instance in which she hasn't been generous to the reader.
"A man (or a woman) really writes for an audience of about ten persons. Of course, if others like it, that is clear gain. But if those ten are satisfied, he is content." --Alfred North Whitehead
I think everyone creates with some kind of audience in mind. If someone says they aren't, they are probably
(1) not good anyway, but might have potential. Every young artist may do this at some point, but then again, who the hell was Ezra Pound writing to most of the time? Could TS Eliot read the Chinese or Egyptian sections of Pound's work?
(2) so incredibly personal in their work that it is almost impossible to explain, yet it still speaks to many. Henry Darger's symbolism comes to mind here. He tells a very long traditional kind of narrative in a completely unique way--I mean, why do the Vivian Girls all have a penis?
(3) is or are just lying. Harmony Korine likes this one.
For me, examples help rather than discussing "surrealism" or "realism" at large. Not that I don't think that can't be productive and a lot of fun, it always seems a little unclear to me.
On the one hand, I really despise David Lynch's Lost Highway. I can more or less pinpoint the moment of irritation with Bill Pullman's character becoming Balthazar Getty's character. For me, this just doesn't work and just seems lazy or "whoa, crazy, man." However, I do like the inexplicability of Robert Blake being in more than one place at a time. i can accept that for some reason. Hmmm...doppelgangers...
On the other hand, I won't even pretend to comprehend every aspect of Lynch's Eraserhead but, for me, the whole thing works even though it goes way beyond the quirks of Lost Highway. It's Bosch, French New Wave, film noir, and more and none of these at the same time.
And no matter what Amethyst says, I can't think of an instance in which she hasn't been generous to the reader.
If one copies the text of a mispelled post, then deletes said post, they can re-paste the post and correct spelling errors.
Asura, I was dead serious. Gaf allaah mofuf chomp panties chomp!
Asura, I was dead serious. Gaf allaah mofuf chomp panties chomp!
Asura-What are your particular questions? I would be happy to explain any examples that I have given. But, yes, I try to use examples that help explain what I mean rather than the opposite. I'm funny that way.
The first section is just discussing possible relations artists have to audiences.
The second section deals more with defining surrealism, which for me, may be really more about what is "acceptable" (rationally, symbolically, narrativevly, etc.) within a particular piece of work or genre.
Sorry for being annoying or "flaunty," neither are particular goals of mine. It's just they way I think.
Miyazaki strikes me as someone that "I don't always get," but I also wouldn't expect him to provide reasoning for everything he does. I enjoy that aspect of his work.
The first section is just discussing possible relations artists have to audiences.
The second section deals more with defining surrealism, which for me, may be really more about what is "acceptable" (rationally, symbolically, narrativevly, etc.) within a particular piece of work or genre.
Sorry for being annoying or "flaunty," neither are particular goals of mine. It's just they way I think.
Miyazaki strikes me as someone that "I don't always get," but I also wouldn't expect him to provide reasoning for everything he does. I enjoy that aspect of his work.
Everyone (Clurg, Asura, and Viney), please go read my first comment in this thread. Eerie, isn't it? It's happening all over again.
Also, if any one from the Nerd Hall of Fame committe reads this thread (a blog thread that turns into a spat about surrealism in fiction), we're all sure locks for future consideration.
Also, if any one from the Nerd Hall of Fame committe reads this thread (a blog thread that turns into a spat about surrealism in fiction), we're all sure locks for future consideration.
I think that my kindness to the reader is in the clarity. I do have a world created in my fiction in which strange, unreal, dare-I-say-it surreal things happen, but I will describe them in a matter-of-fact, lucid way. If you accept the terms of my writing as being a different reality, then you must also accept that strange things may occur, although I promise to make them as clear as possible.
I write so that other people can enjoy the rich inner life I have spent a great deal of time and energy furnishing for myself. I like it there, and so I hope that others will as well. I hope that's what writing is for a lot of people; you imagine things, and you want to share in that imagined world, you want to spread it around. If, in my imagined world, banshees exist and roam the major cities in death-crying hordes, come and watch them with me. But, in order to participate, you have to let go of certain things, you have to release the laws of the universe.
I write so that other people can enjoy the rich inner life I have spent a great deal of time and energy furnishing for myself. I like it there, and so I hope that others will as well. I hope that's what writing is for a lot of people; you imagine things, and you want to share in that imagined world, you want to spread it around. If, in my imagined world, banshees exist and roam the major cities in death-crying hordes, come and watch them with me. But, in order to participate, you have to let go of certain things, you have to release the laws of the universe.
Oo, I just contradicted myself, so let me clarify:
The reader knows how the real world works, just don't automatically expect my world to work in the same way. I said in my post that the surreal fails without a real, which is true. But I'm not sitting down writing something and thinking 'hmm, I think I'll get surreal right about... Here!' It just happens.
Post a Comment
The reader knows how the real world works, just don't automatically expect my world to work in the same way. I said in my post that the surreal fails without a real, which is true. But I'm not sitting down writing something and thinking 'hmm, I think I'll get surreal right about... Here!' It just happens.
<< Home
