if the individual is the instrument of the deep self are we to assume then with every human action what can be inferred about the instrument based on the action is classified by art?
when trying to find how art can fit every action, i began to consider smaller, mundane tasks. since one can never truly understand the inner world of another, they are then left to make assumptions based on the evidence (i.e.:actions). taking an outsiders point of view, it is easy to make assumptions about a person (right or wrong) based on their actions. if art is the manifestation of the "inner world" or "inner self" of an individual, the expression of that self, then that expression must include the philosophy behind it as well. this leads me to believe that every action can be classified by art.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
re: the first question about instruments of art: In this sense, why, yes, indeed. But this will be far more evident, and more "true" to the degree that the individual as instrument does not interfere with the process.
Since this is, in part, an analogy (although it may also be taken literally -- I will come to that), suppose a performer was ready to present a piece of music written for bassoon. She picks up the bassoon and attempts to play, but is thwarted, because the bassoon, which is remarkably able to control at least some of its functions, is convinced that it is a drum and persists in closing and opening all the finger-holes percussively. Or perhaps it is not happy being an bassoon, but wants to be an oboe, and plays only in the upper part of its range...
But this is a crude analogy, because the sort of instruments I mention there are limited in their capacities, whereas humans have a very wide range of possibilities. The possibilities are not infinite, and furthermore some people are well-suited to be dancers (for example) but others are not, some can be opera singers and some, well, simply cannot, some can be star athletes and some can not, and so one and so forth. But there are always those people, like myself, with horrid voices who yet insist upon singing, those graceless boobs who insist on dancing, those colorblind morons who insist on painting. Thus, to be a "good" instrument of the deep self, one must come to know what kind of instrument one has.
It is possible to make conversions: to take lessons, perhaps, to practice, to compensate for colorblindness by working in greyscale. Still, the best is to be aware of the real likelihood of one's use and to work from that. This is called "building on ones strengths".
Generally, we are taught to repair or remediate for weaknesses rather than building from strength, and so we come in contact with the flow of the deep self only accidentally, and it is often a frustrating meeting, even traumatic.
In a certain sense everything we do is a manifestation of the self. After all, I am my self, am I not? So, all that I do shows something of myself. If this showing of myself, or self-expression, is art, why then, everything I do is art.
This is quite different, though, from saying that everything that I do is GOOD art, or that it is art worth remembering, or that it is art about which I am not in some way embarrassed. A good deal of MY self-expression has been perfectly awful, immoral, degrading, unexceptional, scary... that is my art.
But very often when we speak of "art", we really mean something more closely approaching "good art", that is, self-expression of which one can be pleased, beautiful self-expression, worthwhile, useful, delightful, notable, orderly, and so on.
The issue here is not at all one of "twisting the word art to make it fit all instances", perhaps, but understanding that the word "art" in itself should not be confused with the word "art" as QUALIFIED.
Re: the second paragraph
I'm not quite clear how, if an expression includes "philosophy behind it", this justifies understanding that every action can be classified by art.
Post a Comment