If you are an artist, you may want to move to New York, London, or some other major cultural center of the international art world. There you can expect to find thousands of other artists who have the same idea. Artists want to live where they are valued, where they can be inspired, and where they can get the resources they need to create and flourish.
One of the resources you will need in your life inside the “art world” is a philosophy that facilitates the ideal ecosystem for you to flourish as an artist. For example, you want to see among your peers and neighbors that they possess a higher value for creativity, for up-front truth telling, for more competitive standards of excellence, for exploration, for tapping the immense capacity of the human spirit, for greater critical thinking, a supportive community of other artists, opportunities to showcase your work for top dollar, and a celebration of individuality, tolerance, diversity, imagination, and self expression.
These values are well established in the art world. If you live in the art world, you get to enjoy this value system all day every day. And you will assimilate into the cultural flow of the artist friendly art world. Cool.
But I want to tell you, don’t be fooled. Because although these values are important, it does not mean that the ecosystem in which you live as an artist will nourish you to your greatest potential. The art world often succeeds at providing an ecosystem for more art to be produced, but it often fails to produce artists that truly flourish. The artists who are being produced today are inferior to the artists they are designed to be.
Although I agree with the same values of the established ecosystem, I have resolved to do my best to swim upstream. The problem with the “established” ecosystem of our art world is that it is minimal and limited. Sure, the art world challenges you compared to your high school or your home town. But the challenge is not significant enough. You have so much more potential. The greater problem, however, is not that your art is lack luster. The problem is that you and the other artists produced by this ecosystem are failing to lead our culture toward real historical progress. In truth, the sum total of the assumptions that artists have embraced over the decades has led our culture to a devaluation of our humanity.
Below is a table I put together. It is not complete or comprehensive. It is a brief sketch that compares the dominant assumptions that have been held in the art world for more than 50 years with a set of revived 21st century assumptions. I have made it polarized on purpose to illustrate the extremes. On the left is a FINITE outlook. On the right is an INFINITE outlook.
The creative process involves a deep exploration of boundaries. These boundaries exists in matter (or mediums), spirit, space, and time. Each of these has finite and infinite properties. For the artist who is called to serve the greater good, he/she must transcend the limitations of the finite properties of matter, spirit, space, and time and gain wisdom in dealing with their infinite properties. As the artist himself/herself is a medium of spirit, he has the authority to choose how his vessel will be used.
This chart compares the standard and more “finite” assumptions of the international art world in the 20th century with the more “infinite” assumptions that are now emerging in a 21st century revival. For revival to happen, we must move away from the scarcity model of the starving artist and move toward the abundance model of the renaissance artist. We must diligently seek wisdom for how to re-humanize the culture we have allowed to be de-humanized.
Let’s take the assumptions of the established art world….add them together and see what you get.
+ You get a creativity that is transgressive in nature.
+ You get a truth that is invasive (to offend and destruct) in nature.
+ You get relationships that are competitive in nature.
+ You get a success for the individual that is divisive in nature.
+ You get a community that is exclusive in nature.
+ You get a celebration of the human spirit that is not sacred or essential to cultural progress.
+ You get a critical thinking that is satisfied with the discovery of problems.
+ You get an economic exchange that treats the artist as a commodity and champions the consumer of limited resources
+ You get a self expression that ends with the individual
When you add all of these seemingly good things together, you can begin to see how these assumptions are limited. They compound and contribute to a dehumanizing spirit upon the artist. Our artists live in a story that supports the starving artist myth, after all. And we must admit that our artists are not truly flourishing. As a result, the hearts and minds of people in our culture are not flourishing either.
It’s time for an ecosystem in the art world where artists truly flourish. It’s time for a new age where artists are truly wise about eternal things. This is your culture. This is your renaissance.
You are so loved,
Matson
November 11th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I disagree with your assumption here, M, that only through embracing the spiritual will a compassionate ecosystem of artistic community be created. I’m not saying there’s not room for improvement in the attitudes of everyone, everywhere, in general, with respect to artists and how they are treated (and even how they expect to treat themselves).
There is an exception to (most) every rule. Not every artist will be able to understand eternal things. Or want to. This does not mean their art is less valid.
I have never supported the starving artist myth, being one myself (and not starving! though not as a result of my art-making) but I understand it. It’s no myth, for plenty of them. But I don’t believe simply embracing the spiritual is the answer. Also, I believe the output created as a result might be quite a bit different – whether it is ‘better’ or not is up to the interpretation of the viewer/listener/taster/toucher.
I guess my point here is: I believe you can effectively blend aspects of the finite AND infinite, as you array them, here, and make things that are pretty kick ass. There is no need for everyone to strive to choose one over the other.
The option of Options is far more difficult to convince people to choose than selecting x vs. y.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
The difference’s of opinion between Matson and Edison is plainly born of motivation. Matson believes art should nourish the spirit and direct the community toward a healthy spiritual evolution. Edison’s opinion is that art is born of and free to feed on the spirit. Art is art with or without edifying purpose. I have to agree with Matson, not all art is good for, or glorifying to the spirit, but the question is whether we believe that art SHOULD be edifying/nourishing.
Perhaps we can make the comparison to junk food. Both Edison and Matson are careful about what they put in their bodies and healthy living is a priority for both. Matsons essay (if my interpretation is correct) compares art to a form of cultural sustenance with the ability to build up or tear down a community and/or person. I agree with this completely. Edison while careful with his body is a type of artistic anarchist/junk food freak. Art should not be limited in its perspective, ‘healthy’ or not.
Once again I have no opinion. Art as a spiritual immunity booster is certainly cool, but I’m also continually amazed at the beauty in the ugly words/art that can evoke such tremendous emotion.
(shrug)
December 21st, 2008 at 3:21 am
Matson, though I don’t live in the art world every day, I think you’re right. I like the way you evoke the problem. Of course, whenever you create a table like this (pitting two realities against each other in columns), you will no doubt be guilty of some oversimplification to make a point. That’s part of the deal of communicating something nuanced. Don’t worry about it.
Based on the reviews, I’m not sure Seven Pounds stands out as the poster child for the right side of the chart, though.