![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Sep. 6th, 2024 10:07 pmAmanda Palmer's blog on Patreon has been intriguing me and I've been commenting on it. But so far for free - I've not upgraded yet. Taking a wait and see approach. I also like her music recommendations:
Roan Chappell - California
I actually found her comforting. She reminds me of Phoebe Bridgers, and a bit of Palmer. Kind of Alternative meets Grung, with a touch of Pop.
I should explain my view of music? ( Read more... )
But Palmer asked an interesting question in a long winded and round about way...
( Palmer's Question )
My response? I only posted a portion of it...since it kept cutting me off.
As to your question... I've been thinking about this a lot over the past several years, particularly with how social media interfaces with artists - at times on a frightening level.
In sum? I agree with Chappell, completely. The artist owes the audience no more than the art. That’s it. And that is intimate enough on its. Own.
Art, I've always believed should stand on its own? I kind of agree with David Bowie's assessment (which I saw in the art exhibit at Brooklyn Museum of Art), where he stated that art changes as we interact with it. It is different things to different participants. It's not just the creators but all who come into contact with it. It's also a way of understanding another's point of view - to get a glimpse into their psyche, and in some respects to connect with them. Art can be shockingly intimate at times, the most effecting art - I think - often is or the most memorable - the bits that stay with me. (Which may be why we swing away from those who do horrific acts or things we find morally repugnant, because we are afraid of that intimacy with them? Yet, should we? People are complicated? And it helps to understand them better? I don't know the answers to that. I know I've swung away. [This bit I did not post - because I didn't have enough room and deemed it off topic.])
And in regards to privacy - since art is often in of itself an act of intimacy in that the artist is sharing with us a piece of themselves, do we have the right to ask for more? I don't think we do. I think that's presumptuous and invasive, and the artist is right to push us away at that point. Art is magical when we are mutually sharing it – the artist shares their creation, and we share our reactions to it, either by playing with ourselves, interacting with it, or analyzing it, however we need to interact with the art – the artist doesn’t necessarily need to know – just that the very act of interaction – gives the art life outside of the artist.
I know as an artist myself - that what makes me shy away from sharing my art - is that fear of too much of intimacy, of those I'm sharing the art with - clamoring for more than I can give them, or rejecting it out of hand for not being what they expected, or worse thinking my very act of sharing the art - is in invitation to know everything about me or to judge me? Instead of greeting the art with curiosity and an open mind – too often it is greeted with judgement, moral or otherwise. And that’s painful for something so intimately shared.
There's something to be said for the purity of anonymity or a pseudonym. I want my art to stand outside of me - to be seen on its own, as part of me, but also apart. I want those I share it with - to be free to play with it in their own sandboxes, without necessarily telling me. I like the idea of art as being like a child - that you send on its way, but like any nervous parent, with more than a little trepidation and fear, but the art, the creation takes on a life of its own, all the more powerful when we, the artist, are left out of it - watching it go off and succeed. Those we choose to share it with? Should see it as a gift, paid for or otherwise, and ask no more of us but to play with it, forever and a day.
***
Off to bed. I think.
Roan Chappell - California
I actually found her comforting. She reminds me of Phoebe Bridgers, and a bit of Palmer. Kind of Alternative meets Grung, with a touch of Pop.
I should explain my view of music? ( Read more... )
But Palmer asked an interesting question in a long winded and round about way...
( Palmer's Question )
My response? I only posted a portion of it...since it kept cutting me off.
As to your question... I've been thinking about this a lot over the past several years, particularly with how social media interfaces with artists - at times on a frightening level.
In sum? I agree with Chappell, completely. The artist owes the audience no more than the art. That’s it. And that is intimate enough on its. Own.
Art, I've always believed should stand on its own? I kind of agree with David Bowie's assessment (which I saw in the art exhibit at Brooklyn Museum of Art), where he stated that art changes as we interact with it. It is different things to different participants. It's not just the creators but all who come into contact with it. It's also a way of understanding another's point of view - to get a glimpse into their psyche, and in some respects to connect with them. Art can be shockingly intimate at times, the most effecting art - I think - often is or the most memorable - the bits that stay with me. (Which may be why we swing away from those who do horrific acts or things we find morally repugnant, because we are afraid of that intimacy with them? Yet, should we? People are complicated? And it helps to understand them better? I don't know the answers to that. I know I've swung away. [This bit I did not post - because I didn't have enough room and deemed it off topic.])
And in regards to privacy - since art is often in of itself an act of intimacy in that the artist is sharing with us a piece of themselves, do we have the right to ask for more? I don't think we do. I think that's presumptuous and invasive, and the artist is right to push us away at that point. Art is magical when we are mutually sharing it – the artist shares their creation, and we share our reactions to it, either by playing with ourselves, interacting with it, or analyzing it, however we need to interact with the art – the artist doesn’t necessarily need to know – just that the very act of interaction – gives the art life outside of the artist.
I know as an artist myself - that what makes me shy away from sharing my art - is that fear of too much of intimacy, of those I'm sharing the art with - clamoring for more than I can give them, or rejecting it out of hand for not being what they expected, or worse thinking my very act of sharing the art - is in invitation to know everything about me or to judge me? Instead of greeting the art with curiosity and an open mind – too often it is greeted with judgement, moral or otherwise. And that’s painful for something so intimately shared.
There's something to be said for the purity of anonymity or a pseudonym. I want my art to stand outside of me - to be seen on its own, as part of me, but also apart. I want those I share it with - to be free to play with it in their own sandboxes, without necessarily telling me. I like the idea of art as being like a child - that you send on its way, but like any nervous parent, with more than a little trepidation and fear, but the art, the creation takes on a life of its own, all the more powerful when we, the artist, are left out of it - watching it go off and succeed. Those we choose to share it with? Should see it as a gift, paid for or otherwise, and ask no more of us but to play with it, forever and a day.
***
Off to bed. I think.