Subject: Re: ?
Sent: 7/8/98 1:32 PM
To: Pam Brown, [log in to unmask]
>But I've always been sceptical about the processes of
>making art being described as a "gift". What do you mean ? And only "double"
>edged - why not "multifaceted" or somesuch, or anything else as abstract...?
Yeah, well - it depends what you extrapolate from "gift". If you mean a
certain kind of privilege, (the artist as a Very Special Person) yes, I
agree, there are grounds for scepticism. Nevertheless, I admire certain
artists, as everyone does, and have no difficulty is describing their
abilities as gifts, which can be received (by readers or audience) as
gifts. Why not? For more on that very tricky discussion of process, I
enjoyed Nadezdha Mandelstam's examination of "Mozart and Salieri" (from
Pushkin's play) in her book of that name. She makes a rough division
between the hard yakka of Salieri and the divine inspiration of Mozart
(in the full knowledge that it is completely artificial and is also
rather hard on Mozart). Osip Mandelstam of course was partial to Salieri
and the honest labour of artisans. Now artisans have been put out of
business by the global petro-chemical complexes such a view can be
regarded as rather quaint, I guess, but it's a fascinating and often
inspiring discussion.
It's a short step from the double-edge of a blade to the twin poles of a
magnetic field, which contains a shimmering range of possibility. I like
polarities - they're often a useful model for thought, and it's one way
of visualising paradox. To get rid of them would be to banish a lot of
complexity and one of the earliest ways we perceive difference. The
battle is more to perceive the complexities and variousness available
within that very simple model. We may have to agree to differ here.
AC
PO Box 186
Newport VIC 3105
AUSTRALIA
home page: http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/bronte/338
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|