On 10/13/06, biloxi andersen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Now, quality control if you write for yourself.
>
> We've already established that most people are artistically
> illiterate, perhaps even craft junkies, their taste is worthless as
> far as art is concerned and only matters if you want to sell them
> something or gain their allegiance, and their advice is bad.
>
> And we've already established that you could read about the basics of
> art in a week or so, but it could take you a lifetime to master if
> ever at all. You know what you need, you don't need anyone to tell you
> what it is after a little, it just, by its nature, takes a long time
> to get there. And that's a long time of practice. And that's mindful,
> meditative practice.
>
An example might help using one of my pieces. Let's look at craft,
taste and art, to demonstrate.
He said
I feel at home in here
What is it that's wrong with me
Or there must be
There must be something wrong with
A barber, a dentist
Wherever else he goes
There must be something wrong with
A man without a whorehouse
In terms of craft; notice that all the words are simple. Would anyone
need a dictionary to look up any of these above? There's a lot of
discipline in that. Is imagism, or other such tools, used to
distraction that the reader would slug through the text? No. In fact,
not at all. If not needed, not uesd. There's a lot of discipline that.
Now to the artistically illiterate craft junkies; that seriously would
fail to impress. It wouldn't show their prowess. In fact, whereas I'd
take a peace and trim it down to the bare essentials, they'd do the
opposite. But see, that's a fundamental difference. And the
fundemental difference is that of art.
So let's see:
For a start, it's a fictionalisation of a feeling. And
fictionalisation here is quite a tool. People could relate to a scene
or a snapshot of a tale more than an abstract idea or instruction.
Here's a one fictional situation to describe a feeling; a man who
experiences a feeling that troubles him; that is, of "feeling at home"
while being at the whorehouse.
He said - needed for attribution and framing the reference
I feel at home in here - "I" is to get into straight into the mind of
someone; much more effective for this intimate idea than had it been
told in third person. The reader reads it as "I" and is induced to
empathise. And it's the first word. Then notice how "I feel at home in
here" is a use of primacy. A main phease is use first. But also notice
how "here" is used to substitute for the "whorehouse", and the
whorehouse is the last word in the piece. So that's using both primacy
and latency. It could've been "I feel at home in the whorehouse". But
that would've been like aborting an artistic fetus by giving it away
like that with no intrigue.
Then what happens between those primacy and latency? Well, delve into
his mind and emotions. The reader doesn't yet know what "here" is, but
gets "what is it that's wrong with me" indicating that the
protagonist, whom the reader is induced to empathise with by using
first person narrative, is quite troubled by this what-should've-been
a good feeling. This is important that the person is quite troubled by
what should've been a good feeling.
And then "Or there must be". There must be what? Attention is shifted
here. "There must be something wrong with" blame is shifted from self
onto? onto what?
A barber, a dentist
Wherever else he goes
There must be something wrong with
A man without a whorehouse
A barber, a dentist are innocuous, legitimate, proscribed places to go
to. No one would question going there. But not a whorehouse. This is a
use of contrast. The whorehouse, an illegitimate place to go to, is
contrasted with the legitimate ones. "Wherever else he goes" indicated
that it's about a place that he goes to.
With the second "There must be something wrong with" as a
double-emphasis. He says it twice to contrast with "What is it that's
wrong with me".
Again, last sentence is a latency. Notice that it's "a whorehouse"
rather than a brothel. That's a artistic choice and it's important.
Man is contrasted with "whore", there's a notion of sex, sin, and of
women, forbidden desires. That's more biological at yet condemned, and
easier to see than brothel.
So this guy is quite-troubled with feeling at home in the whorehouse
and wonders what is wrong with him and then wonders ("or there must
be") that, "wherever else he goes", "there must be something wrong
with" "a man without a whorehouse". In first narrative to the reader,
intrigue evoked so the reader is somewhat receptive, curious and
perhaps empathic. But to what extent empathic? The reader is more
likely to be conditioned to abide by the common notion that there is
something wrong with the man who goes to the whorehouse, let alone
someone who experiences a feeling of being at home while being there.
It's a somewhat troubling feeling to the man, that he throws at the
common man, who is likely to be the the reader, who might quite well
reject it, in much the same way that the man rejects it. which is
another instance of the reader being induced to empathise with the
man, twice at once now.
What's the problem that's fictionalised here? I'll leave that to you.
But it doesn't even need to be made specific and explicit. That's the
point of fictionalisation. It's the general notion of the problem that
matters.
There are more elements of art attended to in the piece, but I won't
detail here. I've written a lot.
So, that's quite a lot of artistic care in what seems, at the face of
it, quite a little simple piece.
Does it seem that a piece written for oneself has an attention to
quality to it. I would say yes, through and through.
Would everyone appreciate it? No, for sure. Not everyone is qualified
enough to, and I say this with assurance. First, those who don't see
big words in it or three "challenging" images per line won't be
impressed, but that, without hesitation, as I've outlined above, is
sheer ignorance. That would've been catering for the needs of the
artistically-illiterate "poet" rather than the needs of the art
itself. That I regard, without hesitaiton, as ignorance.
And then there will be those who won't know the difference between
taste and art. They don't like something so it has to be crap. That
too, I regard, as ignorance.
Should I care for those people or seek their approval? Heck no!
And then there will be those who are artistically literate who would
notice and acknowedge the artistic elements in the piece, but, it
wouldn't suit their taste, and there's no accounting for taste. And
that's perfectly legitimate.
And then, there's someone who just doesn't relate to the experience
fictionalised here. And that's legitimate too.
Again, does it show a concern for quality. Yes, I think so. Through
and through. Would I describe it as a high-quality piece? Yes, in
fairness, I would. Does this mean I'm arrogant? Nope. It's about the
piece, not about me, if it wasn't good enough, I'd forget it without
hesitaiton, but there are good reasons according to objective
assessment of its artistic concern, regardless of taste, of why I
think so, which I detailed above.
.
|