It started with a simple question.
Talk USERS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
This group has been archived. Find out more.
Join LibraryThing to post.
2Moonlight
I recently had the following conversation with a literature teacher, via e-mail. I now want to share it with you. As you can see, it started with a simple question on my part. I welcome your comments.
I WROTE:
Can you please tell me WHY it's good to be artistic??? I don't have an answer to this, myself. But I figure it's literally YOUR JOB to have an answer to this! Ha ha. I really would like to learn it; seriously; thanks.
THE LITERATURE TEACHER WROTE:
I was in the corporate world for a long time, and there was no art in that world. No passion, no enjoyment of anything that wasn't related to the job. When people found out that I wrote poetry, they looked at me funny, like I was using a part of my brain that they didn't know they had. Being artistic is being as close to the universe as possible. Art is creation, it's love, a manifestation of something bigger than you. Artistic people have a gift that other people don't have. I tell my students all the time that finding a creative outlet is the best thing they can do. If nothing else, it's a way to channel emotion and feelings that otherwise might not make sense. I hope I did my job and answered your question!
I WROTE:
{But} if one creates art, then isn't one necessarily capitalizing on the fact that one is NOT close to "the universe," as you put it? I can understand that the resulting work...the creation...the love...the manifestation...is kin to "the universe." But I wonder if the artist who develops that essence is, necessarily, separate and distinct--?
To put it another way: isn't an entity like a shrub, or a burst of radiation, or a rock, or a zygote, closer to "the universe" (notwithstanding its lack of self-awareness) than any human artist?
Feel free to candidly tell me, if my question's nonsensical. I do trust you.
THE LITERATURE TEACHER WROTE:
Honestly, I think art and artistry are the most {subjective} things in the world. What's art to one person is junk to another, but the creative force behind it all comes from the same place. So here's my attempt to answer your question: I think that realizing one's lack of closeness to the universe is exactly what creates art in the first place. We struggle and strive to become something more than what we are, and when we create something like a painting or a poem or a sculpture, we are bringing to life something greater than ourselves. What is more close to the universe and God than creation?
Capitalizing on that detachment is what brings us closer to what we believe. I don't think you can separate art from the artist. To give you an example, when I read my poems (if I'm editing or going over them), I realize that they are as much a part of me as my heart or my hands. I can't be removed from the poem anymore than a mother and father's genes can be removed from their child. A shrub begets a shrub, and animals reproduce, but humans are the only beings that create for the sake of creating. We can choose to have children, we choose to write or paint or think deep thoughts. Some of us do those things because we feel so strong a pull to them that we can't resist it. I think that's a pretty amazing gift.
So I hope that answers your question. Actually, the things you've asked me have been an interesting way for me to think about why it is that I write in the first place. I've never really given it much thought. I've just done because I don't know any other way to be.
I WROTE:
Your answers have been superb, and I think you're probably teaching me well. My ongoing befuddlement is surely a sign of how stupid I am. It's no fault of yours.
I am (still?) stuck on the following point. I think what "the universe and God", "a shrub", and "animals" have in common is that they create progeny without intending to. They just-do-it. Hence, THEY, not WE, are the ones that "create for the sake of creating" according to my interpretation. They have no choice, they have no underlying intention; they don't care.
Meanwhile, as you put it, "We can choose to have children, we choose to write or paint or think deep thoughts." Being artists, we care about all this. How strange of us!
Thus, to reiterate my previous question, isn't the human activity of art-making fundamentally different than the universe's creative process?
THE LITERATURE TEACHER WROTE:
No, you're not stupid. Actually, as I've said before, I find your questions very interesting and they make me think a great deal.
I think creating for the sake of creating is completely intentional. Creating something just because you can is the crux of being an artist. The world would still go on spinning without art, music, poetry, and dance, but we create it because it's beautiful and taps into a section of our humanity that otherwise would shrivel up. Shrubs and animals are hard-wired to create solely for the continuation of their species. Poetry, etc., has no bearing on humans being able to reproduce (unless you count it as a tool for wooing someone!).
However, to answer your question of the human activity of art-making being fundamentally different from the universe's creative process, I'm of the belief that the universe was not done by rote, either. We don't need all the differently colored flowers; if there was only one color, we would be happy with that. We don't need all different foods. If there was only one kind of food to give us all the proper nutrition we need, that's what we would eat. But the sheer variety of what's around us is enough to tell me that the creator of it all was having a good time doing the creating!
I WROTE:
Can you please tell me WHY it's good to be artistic??? I don't have an answer to this, myself. But I figure it's literally YOUR JOB to have an answer to this! Ha ha. I really would like to learn it; seriously; thanks.
THE LITERATURE TEACHER WROTE:
I was in the corporate world for a long time, and there was no art in that world. No passion, no enjoyment of anything that wasn't related to the job. When people found out that I wrote poetry, they looked at me funny, like I was using a part of my brain that they didn't know they had. Being artistic is being as close to the universe as possible. Art is creation, it's love, a manifestation of something bigger than you. Artistic people have a gift that other people don't have. I tell my students all the time that finding a creative outlet is the best thing they can do. If nothing else, it's a way to channel emotion and feelings that otherwise might not make sense. I hope I did my job and answered your question!
I WROTE:
{But} if one creates art, then isn't one necessarily capitalizing on the fact that one is NOT close to "the universe," as you put it? I can understand that the resulting work...the creation...the love...the manifestation...is kin to "the universe." But I wonder if the artist who develops that essence is, necessarily, separate and distinct--?
To put it another way: isn't an entity like a shrub, or a burst of radiation, or a rock, or a zygote, closer to "the universe" (notwithstanding its lack of self-awareness) than any human artist?
Feel free to candidly tell me, if my question's nonsensical. I do trust you.
THE LITERATURE TEACHER WROTE:
Honestly, I think art and artistry are the most {subjective} things in the world. What's art to one person is junk to another, but the creative force behind it all comes from the same place. So here's my attempt to answer your question: I think that realizing one's lack of closeness to the universe is exactly what creates art in the first place. We struggle and strive to become something more than what we are, and when we create something like a painting or a poem or a sculpture, we are bringing to life something greater than ourselves. What is more close to the universe and God than creation?
Capitalizing on that detachment is what brings us closer to what we believe. I don't think you can separate art from the artist. To give you an example, when I read my poems (if I'm editing or going over them), I realize that they are as much a part of me as my heart or my hands. I can't be removed from the poem anymore than a mother and father's genes can be removed from their child. A shrub begets a shrub, and animals reproduce, but humans are the only beings that create for the sake of creating. We can choose to have children, we choose to write or paint or think deep thoughts. Some of us do those things because we feel so strong a pull to them that we can't resist it. I think that's a pretty amazing gift.
So I hope that answers your question. Actually, the things you've asked me have been an interesting way for me to think about why it is that I write in the first place. I've never really given it much thought. I've just done because I don't know any other way to be.
I WROTE:
Your answers have been superb, and I think you're probably teaching me well. My ongoing befuddlement is surely a sign of how stupid I am. It's no fault of yours.
I am (still?) stuck on the following point. I think what "the universe and God", "a shrub", and "animals" have in common is that they create progeny without intending to. They just-do-it. Hence, THEY, not WE, are the ones that "create for the sake of creating" according to my interpretation. They have no choice, they have no underlying intention; they don't care.
Meanwhile, as you put it, "We can choose to have children, we choose to write or paint or think deep thoughts." Being artists, we care about all this. How strange of us!
Thus, to reiterate my previous question, isn't the human activity of art-making fundamentally different than the universe's creative process?
THE LITERATURE TEACHER WROTE:
No, you're not stupid. Actually, as I've said before, I find your questions very interesting and they make me think a great deal.
I think creating for the sake of creating is completely intentional. Creating something just because you can is the crux of being an artist. The world would still go on spinning without art, music, poetry, and dance, but we create it because it's beautiful and taps into a section of our humanity that otherwise would shrivel up. Shrubs and animals are hard-wired to create solely for the continuation of their species. Poetry, etc., has no bearing on humans being able to reproduce (unless you count it as a tool for wooing someone!).
However, to answer your question of the human activity of art-making being fundamentally different from the universe's creative process, I'm of the belief that the universe was not done by rote, either. We don't need all the differently colored flowers; if there was only one color, we would be happy with that. We don't need all different foods. If there was only one kind of food to give us all the proper nutrition we need, that's what we would eat. But the sheer variety of what's around us is enough to tell me that the creator of it all was having a good time doing the creating!
