The Least Privileged Position

In philosophy club, Chris brought up the classic Platonic distinction in art between composer, performer and audience. He noted that much of the philosophy of art deals with deciding which position is the most privileged. Of course, all of them are necessary but I responded with irony "I don't know which is most privileged but most certainly the creator is the least privileged!" There was some agreement there and Mike shared how of all the song he has written it was the one he spent the least time and energy on that received the most praise. I have heard enough singer song writers say something along the same lines.

But this wasn't what I meant, my humility as sometimes being a creator is not related to the reception of the audience... unless you consider yourself the audience. I have never loved anything I wrote or been proud that it came from me. I have been tickled with a little poem and surprised by what comes out of me from time to time but nothing I've written has been "my baby" so to speak. The frustration and humiliation of being a creator of art (for me) is that I am as much an audience to something (Someone) else. I am a witness to something powerful and beautiful and meaningful beyond my ability to express and when I try to express it all I can say is "That's not right!"

The classic Bruce Lee line where the Master says "When someone points to the moon do not look at his finger." Art (as I understand it) is always a finger pointing to something (Someone) which can not be plainly stated and in some ways I agree with Heinlein that the only joy of writing is being done.

object- empty starbucks sample cup

I am working on my writing skill. This is mostly just an exercise in my prose. I describe a single object in a paragraph with out any deep purpose but simply for practice. The goal is mostly to create the image in the reader's mind... but I would not be surprised if occasionally my object became a symbol of some kind.
Empty Starbucks Sample Cup:

The empty sample cup sits forgotten on the far side of the coffee shop table. The corporate logo on the side of the cup are made to not face towards the man so that the siren can not look him in the eye.The short length of green straw points toward the man like an accusing finger: "He will not throw me away. He will not recycle. He will not purchase anything more." The inner sides of the cup are scraped of their whip cream imperfectly so that they form stretched clouds of sugar and cream dotted with the remains of the cinnamon garnish. The remains of the orange drink makes a shallow pool on the bottom of the cup forming a ring of rejection taken freely, used up and soon forgotten.

Why I Write

Ha, ha, the obvious answer (obvious if you write) is that I write to get these thoughts out of my head. I heard someone say something I've said about my own writing: it is like vomiting on a piece of paper. In mentality I actually agree with Robert Heinlein (or his character Lazarus Long "it is perfectly acceptable if you write just so long as you do it in the privacy of your home and wash your hands when you are done."

But I guess what I am trying to articulate is what I think is beneficial about writing or any kind of art. What is actually good about Jemuel or Martin's music, Mike's comics? I don't think this will be why we do it but maybe could be a standard by which I (or some other high and mighty A-hole) judge our overall success. I think what makes art different from mere self expression (which is good and fine) is that art provides the audience (and artist) a vocabulary for understanding their feelings.

For example, Martin has a number of kinds of songs, love songs, sad songs, intimate songs, ironic songs, etc. and while I do enjoy his romantic "baby baby baby" songs they don't "teach" me any new understanding of my own feelings. That is not because of anything missing from his songs but because the message of those songs is already very well developed in our vocabulary/understanding. But he has a couple of "she did me wrong" songs which do delve to put a difficult experiences into a form both the artist and audience can in some ways understand, accept/reject and articulate.

This understanding of art can be seen in how passionately younger people feel about their music. I once saw a ten year old girl lip syncing to a No Doubt song (this was a while ago) with all of the feeling AS IF she had any understanding what it felt like to go through what the song was about. I see now that she was actually practicing feeling that way and by sharing in their art got a glimpse (inoculation?) of how it really felt.

And though I am certainly prejudiced towards the literate/articulated portion of this: understanding the words; it has to be acknowledged that much of this internal vocabulary is from the music or pictorial aspects as well. For example (I'm lame) when I hear the beginning music or Lord of the Rings or (more respectable) the beginning music or "Silent all These Years" there is a non-literate understanding which I remember. If I look at "the Howl" or "starry nights" I do have a feeling. It might not have a very appropriate word attached to it as if all internal activity had an equal dictionary expression: "Silent all these Years" is = and exactly = to pensive. Making that definition longer does not solve this foolishness as if "Silent All These Years = and exactly = pensive+sad+healing+growing.

So when I write I am in some ways simply expressing myself, but rather than only letting the inside out I also steer my understanding towards a kind of expression. I imagine that my audience is someone like a teenage version of myself and I want him to be able to understand what he is feeling and what is happening. And that is the part of art which I am not the least bit shy about.

Happy Martin? You were mentioned.