Now, thats not to say that people who like them are idiots. You can certainly like something (good OR bad) of your own volition and thats fine. But what is important is liking something for what it is and not building it up to something that it isn't.
Gaiman doesn't really present anything new. To his credit, new ideas are very, very tough and not many authors do them with any sort of frequency. I'm sure he doesn't sit down at his typewriter and wonder what storylines he can swipe from something else. However, he has a fanbase where people worship him as some kind of writing deity that speaks to their souls. That may speak more to his fanbase than his writing but all the same, he is known for his work and its not anything anyone makes it out to be. Enjoyable? Yes. Meaningful? Ehhhhhh...
Last week, Neil gave a well-meaning commencement speech at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia. You can read the whole thing on the Huffington Post. Part of that speech contained the following:
When things get tough, this is what you should do: Make good art. I'm serious. Husband runs off with a politician -- make good art. Leg crushed and then eaten by a mutated boa constrictor -- make good art. IRS on your trail -- make good art. Cat exploded -- make good art. Someone on the Internet thinks what you're doing is stupid or evil or it's all been done before -- make good art.No, Neil, thats not how art works.
Whats most frustrating about this is that his words have very good intentions. "Where you see cynicism, add optimism" and so forth. That is a good message and one that, if he worded it so, I'd applaud him for (as an ever-fighting cynic myself). The problem is, he tells people to "make art".
Yes, Neil, I'll go out into the world and do just that.
The thing is "art is hard" (as Harlan Ellison put it, somehow not swearing in a sentence), and that most people don't have the talent for it, nor do they know what "good" art is. I'm not saying what you "like", which is a subjective concept, I'm talking about "good" which is an entirely different meaning. Good art is a deft hand, a long time working at the skill, an incredible wealth of innate talent and - get this - a lot of fucking failure beforehand. Art is probably the most sacrificial thing a person can do short of throwing their life down to help another person. Art is the greatest creative act as its a person throwing himself out in the world and saying "Here I am". There is also a uniform acknowledgement behind the person's material: you may not like Andy Warhol's output but he's acknowledged for his original ideas and craftwork.
Art is probably the most difficult thing in the world. Most people who are identified as artists are there more as a job but not for art its self. These are talented, hardworking people who deserve our respect for being able to do what they do - but are they artists? The fact that there is a word that can now just as easily lump Rob Liefeld in with Pablo Picasso or The Lourve and Banksy shows that people often don't get the difference - and if I have to tell you why two of those things are not art, please never talk to me again.
In the end, as well intentioned as his speech was, Gaiman just doesn't fucking get it. At his age and with his mindset, I don't think he ever will either. If art is so easy to make, then it would have very little value - which is sort of why American culture has been a quagmire of worthless shit for decades. Michael Bay (not an artist) makes movies that are slam-bang shoot-em-ups with no lasting value while Terrence Malick makes sweeping, difficult movies that are meant to be felt instead of understood and... well, you know which sort HE is.
We have beaten the definition of "art" and "artist" until it is a flat, meaningless word. Art is not about the output an artist makes, it is about the intention of expression of a human being to another in an abstraction like music, photography, painting, sketching, cinema or other mediums. But because you can throw some paint on a canvas or you got a degree in film studies or you can explain Dadaism to your community college friends, people presume you are an artist. No, you can be many things - likely you are either an ankle-deep intellectual or someone who uses "tools" - but you aren't an artist.
Here is a rough litmus test:
Does your output express something greater than yourself?
Is what you're doing something to better or improve the world around you?
Are you attempting - or are you simply illustrating / composing / typing / etc?
Now, if you're just writing or doodling or whatever, I will never, ever look down on you for it. You're probably better at it than I am. I probably admire you for your talents but ... no, you're probably not an artist either. I know a very few handful of people in 31 years who actually qualify for that - my friend Michelle does painting and sketching and it is probably her first, best form of expression - she is an artist. But thats rare. Because good art is rare. And rarity means it should be appreciated, not demanded of or conjoled at a formal university gathering. Art does not come from that sort of place.
Here is a much better mentality than anything Gaiman said. In a written letter, film director John Hughes wrote to his penpal Alison Byrne Fields saying...
"Do you like the way you write? Please yourself. I'm rather fond of writing. I actually regard it as fun. Do it frequently and see if you can't find the fun in it that I do." http://wellknowwhenwegetthere.blogspot.com/2009/08/sincerely-john-hughes.htmlNow thats a good suggestion. Do it for the sake of doing it. Do it for yourself. Do it for pleasure, do it for self-expression, do it to be understood (and alternately, do it so you understand yourself better).
Do not do it for art. You're not that person. And neither is Neil Gaiman.
Be that someone who writes, not types.
No comments:
Post a Comment