Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
An Artist’s Perspective: Individual Freedom and Human Progress—D.C. McAllister
Human flourishing flows from the wellspring of individual freedom.
We hear words like flourishing, or progress, individuality, and freedom all the time, but oftentimes they’re muddled. We speak the words, but we don’t really know what they mean. I admit I haven’t. Not clearly. Not until I read The Catcher in the Rye again.
I could feel a tightness in my throat and my heart beating harder as I read the words on the page. Holden Caulfield was drunk in a New York bar, his depression consuming him.
I could hardly see straight. When I was really drunk, I started that stupid business with the bullet in my guts again. I was the only guy at the bar with a bullet in their guts. I kept putting my hand under my jacket, on my stomach and all, to keep the blood from dripping all over the place. I didn’t want anybody to know I was even a wounded sonuvabitch.
My face warmed and tears fell—not from sadness but from an overwhelming sense of understanding. I laid the book against my chest and let myself feel what Holden was feeling with his imaginary gunshot wound. I could because I knew it so well. The bullet in my gut. The blood dripping. Not wanting anyone to know I was wounded, or at least not wanting to explain it. I didn’t want to answer the question, “What’s wrong?” I have a bullet it my gut! Blood is dripping everywhere! That’s what’s wrong!
I didn’t think anyone would understand. How could they? But J. D. Salinger understood: Losing part of yourself—the most innocent part—in the face of too much pain. That understanding, that connection to another’s presence, to another’s suffering, gave me peace. I wasn’t alone.
Such is the power of the artist—of anyone really—who is fully present, expressing themselves, their hurts, their joys, their insights in a way no one else can. This kind of power can’t come from parroting others. It can’t come from mass production of black velvet portraits. It can’t come from conformity to a standard someone else has set. It has to come from the unique thoughts and experiences of the free individual—the wellspring of originality and life itself.
Art is the true expression and presence of a self-aware individual—and we’re drawn to it like the old man is drawn to the sea. We love “the original.” We love to encounter something we’ve never seen before. Why is that? Is it just that we’re bored and we want to be titillated with something new and shiny? I don’t think so.
I think we are drawn to creativity and originality because we love life, we love what is real, we love what is true. In that moment, as we come face to face with someone being purely themselves, we see ourselves. Our own humanity is reflected back to us, and in that reflection, we are part of something bigger—not consumed by it, but participants in it. We are individuals, but we’re not alone.
Performance artist Marina Abramovic understood this in her work “The Artist is Present” at the Museum of Modern Art in 2010. The exhibition was simple. Marina sat in a chair for hours as people came one by one to sit across from her and look into her eyes. Some people wept. Some laughed. Some seemed to pray. No one said a word, but in those moments, as Marina allowed herself to be present, to connect with the person across from her, art was created: The beauty of human connection in the midst of presence and encounter—two individuals, fully aware, joining as one.
We have two philosophical tensions in this world. First is the idea that human flourishing comes from society, from the collective. This Eastern idea is expressed at its most extreme when the individual is lost to the group and originality and diversity are consumed by conformity “for the greater good.” The result is despair as we lose ourselves in a cold and mechanistic construct designed and controlled by those in power.
Second is the more Western philosophy that flourishing comes from everyone being free to be themselves. The extreme of this view is when life becomes reductionistic, atomistic, and when the individual is cut off from others; everyone is just out for themselves. The result—like that of the individual lost to the collective—is despair, because we can’t be happy when we’re disconnected from others. Human beings will never flourish in isolation.
I believe the artist—maybe even more than the philosopher or the theologian or the scientist (and certainly more than the politician)—can bridge these two worldviews. Happiness comes from the wellspring of the free individual, but being a free individual drives us toward one another, not away.
When you are free, when you are truly yourself, and when you are present to others, you connect with the world around you. You are bigger as a result. You are flourishing. You are happy. But that can’t happen if you aren’t free to be and express yourself—without freedom of the will and the mind, there is only bondage. The irony is that the greatest inhibitor to our freedom is often not an exterior force—it’s the fears and insecurities inside our own minds.
Many people feel isolated and alone because they don’t know themselves, or they lie to themselves about who they are, or they simply don’t explore and experience their own extraordinary beauty as individuals. Because they don’t know who they are or maybe they’re just not comfortable with themselves, they can’t be fully present to others. They can’t connect—not because anyone is keeping them from connecting, but because they have isolated themselves from within.
Fear has robbed them of their freedom to be themselves. That loss keeps them from making human bonds (or at least real, satisfying ones), and they drown in isolation and loneliness. Ironically, they think the answer to that isolation is to build false social constructs through acts of conformity in pop culture, cult-like religious groups, social engineering, and community planning (and collectivists are there to lead them into the trap). But these social constructs are contrived. They’re an illusion to true human connection. They’re phony because they’re not built on the foundation of the free individual.
Authenticity only comes through a person being himself and herself, open, and willing to connect with others.
Can you think of a time when you met someone who made you feel better about yourself simply by being in their presence? Thoughts of them lingered in your mind long after you met them. There was just something about them that affected you, even though you couldn’t exactly put your finger on what it was. The reason you felt that way is because that person was fully present. You encountered them as a truly free individual—free from external and internal restraints—and that encounter enriched, even changed, you.
Can you think of a work of art you’ve seen, a piece of music you’ve heard, a book you’ve read, a film you’ve watched that moved you in a way nothing else ever has? You can’t always describe what that ineffable quality is, but it’s real and you connect with the artist through his or her work. As a result, you feel a sense peace because—in some strange way—you are more complete than you were before you read those words or heard those chords or saw those forms on the canvas.
That kind of human expansion—flourishing—can only happen when individuals are free and when they actually express and act on that freedom in an honest and open way. Whether it’s in art or everyday life, if we’re not real and open to others, we will never be truly happy. We’ll be isolated as we fail to connect with those around us, or we’ll become lost in phony constructs built to mimic human connection. Either way, we’ll grow smaller and smaller until there is nothing left.
Only by being free as our true selves will we be present to others and give them the sacred gift of looking into our eyes and seeing the golden reflection of their own greatness.
Artwork: “Golden Leaves” by D.C. McAllister (acrylic, sand, rice paper)
Published in General
This is why the conservatives are losing the culture. You have determined that “traditional classical realism” is the standard of all art. In this, you close yourself off to understanding other perspectives. Have you even seen the exhibition I cited?
Pseudo-intellectual? That is quite judgmental, not to mention arrogant in light of my post being simply an honest sharing of my thoughts about these issues. Clearly, Ricochet is the wrong forum for having such discussions. We’ll stick to politics, the pope, and our favorite foods because that’s working out so very well when it comes to connecting with the culture.
In addition, I did not cite Marina to analyze her work, only to comment on her understanding of the need for “presence” in art and in life. This is the whole point of my post. It is a heartfelt sharing of my understanding of presence and the need for it to build true community as individuals express themselves in real and honest ways to one another. This is a point only a couple of people here are even gotten. One you have failed to notice as well, and yet it is the whole point of the post—one that was written more out of reflection and meditation than analysis.
But, you were too quick to be judgmental as you cling to your traditional realism as “art”—as if the perfect sculpture of some guy’s groin communicates the human spirit better than Franz Marc’s expressionism (please!)—and in being so quick to judge, you have failed to grasp the message I was sharing —one that builds relationships, not tears them down (as you have just done).
Oh, a question–Your penname is Dmath, but you signed it JMath. Which are you? Or was it a typo?
Please don’t. Had I a dime for every time I heard that something was not poetry because _______, I could buy the world and rule as king. Usually, such comments came from people whose poetry was not so good. Politics always leads back to human nature, so it is depressing. Not all of us are Roman Catholic. Food? Well, that can certainly be a creative art. Beyond that, I often find myself enjoying the threads on architecture, art, poetry, literature. These are the uplifting things, even if Ricochet is half-filled with a bunch of curmudgeons who just want these kids off their artistic lawn. The art posts are the leavening that makes the politics and religion bearable.
Now this is funny.
DMath is my husband — I’m JMath, and since we share the same e-mail address it has been difficult to set up separate accounts for these sorts of things.My use of the term”pseudo-intellectual” was not aimed specifically at you but rather at modernist “art” commentary in general. The most banal, superficial, ugly, weak, and almost always mediocre “works” are analyzed and explained with claptrap to make them out as deep profound statements. Hogwash.
I have determined that classical realism is the standard of all art? No, I haven’t determined that — rather it’s the determination of what Chesterton called the “democracy of the dead”. It’s really very simple: What was considered “art” throughout centuries in Western Civilization was turned upside down (read “The Twilight of Painting” by R. H. Ives Gammell for an excellent exposition of the reasons). Whatever its virtues and vices, it is clearly a very different kind of beast, often at odds and outright war with the concepts of art that existed for centuries. Call it something else — perhaps “decoration”, or maybe “decorative therapy”, as its creators certainly are earnest about it, but it ain’t art. JMath
I’m commenting through another post. I’m sure you’ll have some things to say there as will others from Ricochet. Clinging to traditions as the standard of truth undermines freedom and individuality.
“This is why the conservatives are losing the culture.”
No, this has nothing whatsoever to do with it. With the exception of Tom Wolfe’s “The Painted Word”, not much scathing about the ridiculousness of modern art has been presented by conservatives or by nearly anyone. Oh, when we as taxpayers are expected to cough up our money for some offensive tripe that some “artist” vomited, then some conservatives rightly object, but even then it’s a position against the funding, not about the “art” per se. I would argue that if anything, the culture war has been lost because the Left is quite passionate about destroying Western Civilization, while conservatives have been too disinterested or too cowed by the “art” world elites (who wants to be called a Philistine, after all?!) to do more than shake their heads and cluck their tongues. That’s what lost the culture war in the arts, not a constant smothering criticism that drove the really cool, really talented artists to the underground.
“Clinging to traditions as the standard of truth undermines freedom and individuality.”
Kinda like clinging to God and guns, right?
But that is a straw-man — I never posited tradition as a “standard of truth”. What I merely pointed out that what was regarded as art throughout the centuries, up until quite recently, has little in common with modern “art” and indeed modern “art” is often opposed directly to it. It seems logical, then, to call it something else. What you’re saying is akin to a would-be musician deciding that the traditions of knowing what musical notes are and how to produce those notes on an instrument undermines his freedom and individuality — so he dispenses with them, and declares that he is a musician though he has never learned an instrument.
One “tradition” that has historically been the sine qua non of the visual arts is the ability to draw — that is, to draw recognizable and intelligible forms. Because of the breakdown in the teaching methods about a century ago, we have modern art to accommodate the droves of people who have no talent for drawing or who haven’t developed it. It’s easier to fake it.
DC, Dmath has said “The Artist is Present” is not art, I agree. By your definitions, why is this art? Does the artist connect with people in a way that does not occur when strangers make friendly eye contact in the normal course of life, or do you consider these type of occurrences art as well? Is it because the event is staged? When the connection one has with another is only superficial, by my definition it cannot have depth. The assessments one makes in a staged interaction, about how one looks, how long the eye contact, the nature of the expressions are not authentic. Abramovic does not know her viewers, her connections are no more personal than a politicians handshake or a Walmart greeters, “hello”. Essentially, this event says look at me, as if there were content or an interesting aesthetic viewpoint being presented. If you think this is art make your argument. “Please” is not a rebuttal, nor is it a model of civil disagreement.
Jim Beck
Jim–please as I wrote is quite civil. I’ll be answering in another post whenever it gets published.
Jim and jmath–did you see Marina’s exhibition?
No. And do you honestly believe that I would have had to have seen it in order to comment on it? I assume your description of it is accurate. That assumption being correct, it is not art, or at least not as art has been understood in Western Civilization up until quite recently. Again, the emperor is wearing no clothes. Calling ugliness beauty, calling mediocrity excellence, calling superficiality profundity — this is very corrupting.
There is actually much you and I would agree on but you don’t seem willing to listen. I’m sorry for that. And yes considering your harsh language it would be judicious to have actually seen the work.
I am compelled to ask, my art is abstract expressionism. Is it ugly, mediocre, and superficial? Am I corrupting Western Civilization? According to what you’ve written, you seem to think so.
Afternoon DC,
Before my original comment, I viewed the youtube clip of the piece. If art is communication, or a form of communication, then one can critique the interaction between the artist and the audience, and the effectiveness of the artist’s use of his medium. The artist may be presenting his vision of aesthetic interest, or whatever image or sound or story has burrowed into his mind to the extent that the person must make it tangible. From Brancusi to Coltrane, whatever image or sound that the artist is energized enough to make and present, the artist hopes that an audience may react and be pleased. Abstract art can be judged by design, composition, workmanship, proportion, even if the content is just an image, one can evaluate the quality of a work. When the artist uses a medium or language which can be evaluated for content, then this content becomes part of the area of criticism. Using my criteria the “The Artist is Present” is not strong, visually it is not either distinctly interesting or attractive, and the interactive content is artificial. It focuses attention on Abramovic as if her mere presence lends meaning to life.
Jim Beck
Jim. –thank you for your critique. You have interesting points. I will say the whole point of the performance is her presence. The person sitting across from her is the viewer, not us. It’s about her presence and theirs. The emotional reactions of some of the viewers is quite breathtaking. Humbling and yes beautiful.
In many types of art from music to architecture, the artist puts his name on a work hoping that an audience will receive it well, in the sense that the audience will believe the work is a work worthy of consideration. Modern art has often been dismissive of the audience, refusing to use a language or symbols which allow the audience access to the meaning or intent of the artist. This is especially true of much of what was traditional art forms, painting, sculpture, drama. Since the 60’s artists have lived out Schnable’s declaration “Everyone knows art is a con game, and I am a con artist”. So how are we to determine whether Abramovic is an attention seeking poseur or an artist? If we say she is an artist because she evokes emotional responses from some viewers, then the meaning of art is no longer comprehensible. One could say that art illuminates the heart of the artist or that art illuminates the heart of man, in either case the art work can give us a glimpse of the uncloaked imagination of the artist. So are we left knowing more about Abramoic, has she illuminated human nature?
Yes. She has communicated the desperate need we all have for human connection. This is something many people fail to see. It’s not about emotionalism. It’s about communication.
I am 66, in my view, we live in an art desert. No one can name a living sculptor, or playwright. Performance artists have not reestablished credibility or lasting interest in art, they seem to be just another Sensation. Will the audience seeing Abramovic in person or on video conclude that art offers a essential benefit to life.
No, likely her work will not last, people will not lastingly talk of it, nor will her work rebuild the lost trust people have in art. People who design games or apps are more connected with the wants and dreams of a modern audience. Unfortunately, this is not art in public places, so we are left with an empty stage. Even the top college students, who become 4th medical students can not name 5 sculptors, or painters, or playwrights, or even know Winton Marcellus. I am pessimistic that Abramovic’s work will help turn the tide. I am sure we will come back to loving and seeking beauty, I am not sure when.
Jim Beck
Jim–I too love beauty. I think there is much beauty being produced but it is shadowed by pop culture transient ugliness. There are artists out there who don’t get top billing but they have an impact in their sphere. As Dostoyevsky said, beauty will save the world. I believe that.
“There is actually much you and I would agree on but you don’t seem willing to listen. I’m sorry for that. And yes considering your harsh language it would be judicious to have actually seen the work.”
I have generally found that when someone claims that another isn’t “willing to listen”, the real truth is that the other person’s views are in opposition. It’s not really a question of my willingness to listen, is it? I have read all of the material you have posted — isn’t that the written equivalent of listening? My real crime is that I disagree with you, and for reasons that you don’t like.
No, I will stand by my assessment based on your description of the exhibition. It appears to be yet another tiresome example of pretended profundity: The only reason it can pull off this piece of fiction is because the spectators have been told that it is art, and they have been schooled from an early age to believe whatever the art elites tell them.
A very apt quote from Leonardo Da Vinci: “The supreme tragedy is when theory outstrips performance.”
“I am compelled to ask, my art is abstract expressionism. Is it ugly, mediocre, and superficial? Am I corrupting Western Civilization? According to what you’ve written, you seem to think so.”
Ugly? Possibly — there is ugly abstract expressionism, to be sure. Non-ugly abstract expressionism may even be pleasing, and fit very well into a particular interior design. That is why I think that “decoration” is a more fitting term for it than art.
Mediocre and superficial? Yes — I have never seen any abstract expressionism that rose to any great level of skill or expression. Nor is there any appreciable standard by which such works are to be judged anyway: What is “good” composition in abstract expressionism? “Good” implies a standard by which one can say, “this is good”, or “this is bad”.
And you are once again putting words in my mouth: I did not say that you were corrupting Western Civilization. I said that calling good bad, and so on, is corrupting. This takes place on a personal and societal level. When children are shown works by Michelangelo and Pollock and told that both are art, a great Orwellian corruption has occurred.
jmath–thank you for your insights.
D.C. McAllister Whether it’s in art or everyday life, if we’re not real and open to others, we will never be truly happy. We’ll be isolated as we fail to connect with those around us, or we’ll become lost in phony constructs built to mimic human connection. Either way, we’ll grow smaller and smaller until there is nothing left.
This is a great post DC! It makes me wonder about our current trends in communication. All of our texts and posts are perfectly perfect & micromanaged. never to be betrayed by tone if voice or a look in our eye. I know what my college roommate ate for lunch, there is no need to call her to see “what’s up”. those nonexistent calls never turn into moments when somebody admits “I’m so glad you called, no everything is not ok.”…bah! I’m having a heck of a time doing this from my phone! seriously taking me like 30min with the screwy quote function, auto correct & almost zero capability yo put cursor where I want it….not cool 2.0
This topic is very interesting to me, so I’ve actually sat down at a desktop for Ricochet. Not something I’ve cared to do since 2.0! I’ll try to express myself more clearly now. Without the phone to blame..things are getting real ;)
I’m no art expert. I tend to prefer classical realism to modern art. But, “The Artist is Present” is really on to something. The beauty of eye contact is real. Even if it is not spontaneous.
In my teens/college I held two soul crushing jobs. The first was working the drive-thru at MickeyD’s.
I knew eye contact was nice, but I did not realize it was vital before that job. I seriously broke down in tears after one week . I was treated like a thing, not a human.
I have also waitressed so, I know what it is like to be treated like a servant. Actually not bad, you are still a human & can enjoy serving others well.
Not so the drive thru. People do not even look at you. They snap and snatch & all is done under pressure to go faster, faster, faster.
There was one old duffer who always came through first thing in the morning. Always coffee and a plain sausage muffin. He looked at me. He smiled. He said something quick and banal,
“Nice weather today.”
I loved him.
I vowed never to give another human the drive thru treatment.
The second soul crushing job was in college at a Call Center, aka telemarketing. This job robs you of all personal freedom and expression. You must stick to the script. If the person on the phone says that, you say this. Every interaction, your half of it anyway, is preordained. And, to top it off, Big Brother may be listening in from upstairs.
I know telemarketers are annoying, I’m on the do not call list myself these days, but they are still humans. Some people would go way way off on you, venting all their pent up rage and disappointment. And you could not say, “hey buddy relax if your time is so important, quit reaming me out and hang up.”
And YOU could not hang up! You had to try to KEEP them on the line. To move on with the script. No freedom.
Torture.
That reminds me of a guy I worked with for a short time who spent twenty minutes telling me how he didn’t have five minutes to answer a question. He went into how complicated it was to answer the question, how busy he was, etc. He could have said, “I can’t right now, can we talk (in an hour/tomorrow/whatever).” People can be very interesting.
I agree with Katie O. that the eye contact can be extraordinarily important and expressive.
But I remain with those who question whether it is, indeed, art. Art, to me, is a unique creation that expresses the soul, communicating with others. But, for some reason, I remain convinced that art needs to involve MAKING something (a sculpture or a poem), not just opening a window into the soul. We are not ethereal beings; we are to elevate the physical world, not separate from it.
Yes, I think I agree iWC. Art is art because it reveals truth, beauty or goodness in our physical world not some ethereal space. But can’t that be revealed through an experience not a tangible or “made” thing? I mean, something like a dance or unrecorded music. Fleeting, but real?