Sunday, July 01, 2007

Authentic Art

I WAS THINKING about crazed characters like John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth wandering the wilderness of their time and place, of how they were more in touch with the intellectual currents of the people and the land than all the many well-trained political philosophers far above them whose role was to support the Empire which created and sustained them.

I WAS THINKING about Gaugin and Van Gogh, how their art, created in an atmosphere of hostility and neglect, lives now for our time and for all times, while the approved salon painters produced by artistic academies then are now justly forgotten.

IS IT the mission of the authentic artist to appeal to the politicians and gatekeepers that surround him-- or not to his or her conscience and voice? Shouldn't the artist be true first to truth, the expression of truth-- to art itself?
Posted by at

6 comments:

Frank Marcopolos said...

Yes!

"Our very lives depend only on one thing - Truth." - Bill Hicks.

7/01/2007 09:05:00 AM
King Wenclas said...

Hi Frank. I caught some of the podcast interview on your site. I wish I could comment further-- too much water over the dam-- will just say that is one of the great voices in lit today. . . .
(You asked some puffball questions though!)

7/02/2007 10:11:00 AM
Frank Marcopolos said...

haha. well, it wasn't a "hardball"-type thing.

i should be getting one i did with jeff somers up soon. it's longer and quite entertaining. oh, and we mention you and the ULA as this was around the time he had done a reading in philly that you had attended.

7/02/2007 04:23:00 PM
SHIMO said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
7/11/2007 10:39:00 AM
SHIMO said...

but then the question stands: how can we judge the value of art that was neglected and now is adored? Should we be happy that the art world as it stands is what it is? Or can we look back and see how even timeless works of art have had political position and have had negate impacts--or any impacts at all-- on society? Or can we accept that in this highly-connected world that there are no non-political actions and no non-political art works? is there any goal in presenting truthful work? should there be?

if that's the case, the individualism that the artist needs, develops and supports has political ripples. Maybe the goal should not be to establish a political structure based off this ("radical") individualism, but still... how can we, as artists, as communicators, not hope to bring to light certain parts of our message to those who have political sway, be they within our small circle of friends or state-wide power? can anything be said without a spin, even seemingly non-political things? doesn't the spin need to be there for the letters to stand up anyhow?

7/11/2007 10:42:00 AM
King Wenclas said...

The bottom-line point is that the best writers in this culture are not being hyped or even published. Such as Brooklyn Frank's first podcast subject.
There is great talent in the underground-- great talent-- but we have to work together in order to have success.

7/12/2007 10:20:00 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)