Living the literary life?

[stlukesguild]

Well I do get what you mean, but let me add something here. It's that I don't think conceptual art is (should be) easier to master, in fact, I think it is (or should be) harder...

I agree that conceptual art done well is not easy to do. It demands a sensitivity to the materials and objects that the artist has chosen to recontextualize so that the result is not without a concern for aesthetics (or dare I say "beauty", and resonates with multiple layers of possible meaning. Among some truly fine works of conceptual art I would certainly include:

Meret Oppenheim's Object which plays with allusions to touch and taste and surreal intimations of sexuality:



Man Ray's simple Violin d' Ingres:



Joseph Cornell's poetic shadow boxes... including the Magnificent De Medici Slot Machines:



Ed Kienholtz' harrowing State Mental Hospital where goldfish bowls replace the face/minds of the inmates who can only imagine (as in the neon dream bubble) more of the same:



The reality is that much of the finest "conceptual art" is created by artists utilizing craft skills outside of the usual drawing/painting/sculpture/print experience. In a manner these artists bring to the art world that outside influence of which JBI has spoken as being necessary to infuse an old tradition with new energy. Martin Puryear, an African-American sculptor living in rural Pennsylvania studied with master woodworkers and furniture craftsmen in Scandinavia before bringing these sensibilities to the non-utilitarian world of art:



Ron Meuck built upon the skills he mastered in creating special effects for the film industry using modern polymers, latex, foam, etc... in creating his unsettling hyperrealist sculptures:





Still other artists, dating back to Richard Smithson's Spiral Jetty have utilized only natural materials creating works that remain in nature and that eventually will erode:



Perhaps the most interesting contemporary earth artist is Andy Goldsworthy... whose work has an almost Japanese Zen quality to it:



All of his works are created on the spot and left to the elements... sometimes lasting but a few moments. Only the photographic records remain:



In a variation on earth art there is Richard Greaves' "anarchitecture"... buildings constructed of materials claimed from collapsed homes... put together without the use of any nails, screws or other artificial means they are essentially a version of a house of cards:



Even the book has become a source of conceptual art... scribbling and doodling in these instances:





What's easier is to fake or give the illusion of great art by playing on the ignorance of the public and it's will to appear sophisticated, or simply living in the illusion of doing great art, because of the general example.

Bitterfly- Stlukesguild, it's rather reassuring to hear a specialist saying that contemporary art isn't that interesting. Because, as Etienne says, there's always that wish to appear sophisticated and therefore to shut up when you think you're viewing crap, and not at all great art. I've recently started to air my real thoughts, when I go to see a show that obviously takes its public for a bunch of fools, but it's hard not to go with the stream. And there's always a risk that you've really misunderstood the artist.

While I largely bristle at the use of the old analogy to the "Emperor's New Clothes"... which is largely thrown out by those without the least understanding or appreciation of art post-Impressionism... there is something of that involved today. There is a gross amount of money invested in the arts... but the pool of what is available has continually shrunk. Even Bill Gates... with all the wealth he has at hand... could not possibly build an art collection to rival the Frick Museum (for example). There are simply not that many masterful works by old masters still in private hands. For this reason prices of Impressionism and Modernism and even contemporary art have spiraled beyond all reason. As any artist knows... in most cases the production of art is a slow... deliberate process. Large paintings by Rubens or Velasquez often demanded months of labor. Vermeer created all of 40 paintings in his life. Rembrandt may have painted as many as 400. Dealers now want artist who can turn out 50 or 100 new large works a year... thus fueling demand. Very few critics are going to come out and tell you how bad much of the work is... not when their salaries come from the advertising dollars paid by the dealers to the very publications for which they are employed. The few exceptions, such as Robert Hughes and Donald Kuspit generally write for magazines not dependent upon gallery support (Time, Newsweek), newspapers, and/or are employed through universities.

I do think that art today ought to be something else than what can be done through photographic means, for example, and in this respect a degree of conceptualism is needed, but as a mean to extend boundaries, and not to reduce art to "mere" conceptualism.

Yes... I agree there should be a place for everything. But then my initial comments were about the manner in which many of the supporters of conceptual art would not have it that way. Sean Scully, one of the leading contemporary abstract painters, admitted that he once thought that such art could co-exist peacefully... but now he states that for the artist it has become an either/or position.

JoZ- I am more accessible to pink sharks suspended in tanks and glittering madonna's partly sculpted in elephant dung than luke or bitterfly or you might be. Crass commercial materialism can teach as much as neo-classical reverence does, in my book.

JoZ... believe it or not I am far less conservative as an artist than you might suppose. However, I have no place for Hirst's shark suspended in formaldehyde (all graciously funded by Charles Saatchi) nor Chris Ofili's Sh** Madonna and Sh** Christ... Las Vegas sequins mounted on giant elephant turds and passed off as conveying some deep spiritual meaning. If I wish to learn from crass commercialism I have no lack of access to the internet, Hollywood, billboards, TV, etc... Fine artists who attempt to take on popular culture at its own game are simply ridiculous. They remain popular, however, because we have endless millionaires and even billionaires who made their money in real estate, oil, junk bonds, or the tech industry... but know nothing about art. They do know, however, that they loved Scooby Doo and Batman when they were kids.

[Etienne]

I loved Meret Oppenheim's Object, had never seen that one. I remember that Violin d'Ingres, as one of my friend who is a violonist wanted such a tattoo on her back too. I love Ron Mueck too, his sculptures are simply incredible. Besides I've been introduced to Andy Goldsworthy's work recently, this one striked me very much:

The reality is that much of the finest "conceptual art" is created by artists utilizing craft skills outside of the usual drawing/painting/sculpture/print experience.

Yes, of course, but the point is that the medium is of no importance to the fact that an artist needs the traditional skills of this medium before being able to create great art with this medium.

[librarius_qui]

is there conceptualism in literature?
this seems to be going into visual arts ...

no doubt the arts walk together, but . . .


There are many arts. Are all arts part of theatre ( / cinema)? Once I thought this, because to theatre you need writing, painting and music.

Writing, portraying and music are very different from each other.

The lives of a writer, of a portrayer, and of a musician are completely different from each other.

A writer fights against being famous. A portrayer doesn't seem to care about it. A musician only cares about living, and working all right! (I wish I were a musician ... I believe they're the happiest! I can hardly play a mandolin, and doubt I'll ever do any art out of it! ...)

Anyway, the subject was "Living the literary life".

What's this anyway? Living like a writer? Living like an artist? Talking about art in general, and having opinion on it? ... I have to say that the thread attracts me, but that I'm kind of confused! ...

[JBI]

is there conceptualism in literature?
this seems to be going into visual arts ...

no doubt the arts walk together, but . . .


There are many arts. Are all arts part of theatre ( / cinema)? Once I thought this, because to theatre you need writing, painting and music.

Writing, portraying and music are very different from each other.

The lives of a writer, of a portrayer, and of a musician are completely different from each other.

A writer fights against being famous. A portrayer doesn't seem to care about it. A musician only cares about living, and working all right! (I wish I were a musician ... I believe they're the happiest! I can hardly play a mandolin, and doubt I'll ever do any art out of it! ...)

Anyway, the subject was "Living the literary life".

What's this anyway? Living like a writer? Living like an artist? Talking about art in general, and having opinion on it? ... I have to say that the thread attracts me, but that I'm kind of confused! ...

Some avant gaurde poetry borders on conceptualization, though none is really taken seriously. Though, some wacky things are coming out in recent times - things might get a little weird.

[stlukesguild]

I think quite often the lines between writer/artist/musician are blurred because they are not as far apart as they may seem. Rousseau began as a composer; E.T.A. Hoffmann started as a painter, a semi-successful composer (he still has a few pieces that are considered a minor part of the classical repertory). Eugenio Montale (who we are reading in the Poetry Group) began as a composer and singer; Theophile Gautier began as a painter. William Blake and Dante Rossetti are both admired equally as poets and visual artists... and this barely touches upon a few examples. The Japanese and Chines ideal was of the poet/painter/calligrapher. I think beyond the fact that many artists have tried their hand at one or more forms (music, poetry, painting, theater) they are quite often sensitive to other art forms... greatly enamored of other art forms... and at times directly influenced or inspired by other art forms. Degas loved the ballet, the opera, and the cabarets. The Abstract Expressionists were fueled on jazz (and alcohol). Rilke had Rodin. Rimsky-Korsakov had the Arabian Nights (Scheherazade), etc...

Personally, living the "literary life" for me means continually being surrounded by an ever-growing library (now some 3000+ books). It means that I can admit, to paraphrase J.L. Borges, that few things have happened to me and I have read a great many... or rather few things have happened to me more worth remembering than the music of England's words. It means that books have always been a central part of who I am... even as an artist. That many of the visual artists who have inspired me and continue to do so can be found in books. It means that William Blake, and the Book of Kells, and the Lindesfarne Gospels, and the Shah Nameh of Tabriz, and the Kelmscott Chaucer, and the Book of Durrow, and the Paris Psalter, and illuminated books of Koetsu and Sotasu, and the ukiyo-e prints and books of Utamaro and Hokusai are just as important to me as an artist as Rembrandt and Titian.

Certainly, there are differences. The average visual artist, for example, must have a certain degree of manual dexterity and is commonly involved in the heaviest manual labor. Contrary to the image of the effete artist, most of them are quite solid carpenters and laborers. Their art demands as much. For the most part, the visual artist is like the writer in preferring to work in solitude. This may be true of the composer as well... but the musician and the other members of the performing arts must commonly thrive upon an audience. I think that the question may not have gone far because we imagine that "living the literary life" (or the artistic life) rarely fits some stereotype. It means something different and is experienced differently by each individual writer/book lover.

[librarius_qui]

Some avant gaurde poetry borders on conceptualization, though none is really taken seriously. Though, some wacky things are coming out in recent times - things might get a little weird.

Ah, yeah, you're right ... There is weird thing in poetry! I almost always forget this (as well) weird part of literature, haha!

(Kidding. At least in a way.)

I mean, all the poems I write (that I consider) are part of narrative, and narrative themselves.

But I'm straying here.

So, what about the life of a poet. Does a poet live of what he does, or is he a common office worker like me? Or a poet during the days of college only, and after that, buries his art, "forever more"? ... (Or do they all die too young for being noted before that happened?)

[JBI]

Ah, yeah, you're right ... There is weird thing in poetry! I almost always forget this (as well) weird part of literature, haha!

(Kidding. At least in a way.)

I mean, all the poems I write (that I consider) are part of narrative, and narrative themselves.

But I'm straying here.

So, what about the life of a poet. Does a poet live of what he does, or is he a common office worker like me? Or a poet during the days of college only, and after that, buries his art, "forever more"? ... (Or do they all die too young for being noted before that happened?)

Who knows, many writers boarder on something in between prose and verse. Anne Carson, who I think must've been fueled by Sheila Watson (who pretty much created the concept of verse-novel in Canadian literature) would probably be the prime example. Though, Watson's Double hook is worth checking out - it is certainly authentic.

The point is though, Prose is always trying to match poetry, because it is, in the contemporary sense, merely corseted poetry. The power of literature is in the manipulation of the word, and if you write prose, your abilities are somewhat limited.

Though actually, there is a movement in post-modern poetry to mix verses with visual images.Some even have gone so far as to mix poetry with cinema, though I can't think of a very interesting example - I know, for instance, the American poet Thylias Moss has gone down that road, though, I would say her older stuff is far more interesting.

I guess though, when it comes down to it, grafting forms is certainly a good idea, and it's strange that very few people do it, though the reason is pretty easy to see. To master one art form is unbelievably difficult, yet to master two is far harder.

Still, it would be interesting to see someone build off of the graphic novel, and create something in a more literary vein. The concept is interesting, but most just read like thick comic books. I think the problem is the artists make sure the text matches the images, and is contained within the image, rather than letting the text and image conflict, or contradict, or even not be formed as speech.

Even, for instance, poetry backed by abstract art could be very interesting. But I guess such a thing would be impossible - with the poetry markets like they are, I think selling a book with colored pictures would be impossible. The printing of the books would be far more than the price people would be willing to spend anyway.

[librarius_qui]

I think quite often the lines between writer/artist/musician are blurred because they are not as far apart as they may seem. Rousseau began as a composer; E.T.A. Hoffmann started as a painter, a semi-successful composer (he still has a few pieces that are considered a minor part of the classical repertory). Eugenio Montale (who we are reading in the Poetry Group) began as a composer and singer; Theophile Gautier began as a painter. William Blake and Dante Rossetti are both admired equally as poets and visual artists... and this barely touches upon a few examples. The Japanese and Chines ideal was of the poet/painter/calligrapher. I think beyond the fact that many artists have tried their hand at one or more forms (music, poetry, painting, theater) they are quite often sensitive to other art forms... greatly enamored of other art forms... and at times directly influenced or inspired by other art forms. Degas loved the ballet, the opera, and the cabarets. The Abstract Expressionists were fueled on jazz (and alcohol). Rilke had Rodin. Rimsky-Korsakov had the Arabian Nights (Scheherazade), etc...

Personally, living the "literary life" for me means continually being surrounded by an ever-growing library (now some 3000+ books). It means that I can admit, to paraphrase J.L. Borges, that few things have happened to me and I have read a great many... or rather few things have happened to me more worth remembering than the music of England's words. It means that books have always been a central part of who I am... even as an artist. That many of the visual artists who have inspired me and continue to do so can be found in books. It means that William Blake, and the Book of Kells, and the Lindesfarne Gospels, and the Shah Nameh of Tabriz, and the Kelmscott Chaucer, and the Book of Durrow, and the Paris Psalter, and illuminated books of Koetsu and Sotasu, and the ukiyo-e prints and books of Utamaro and Hokusai are just as important to me as an artist as Rembrandt and Titian.

Certainly, there are differences. The average visual artist, for example, must have a certain degree of manual dexterity and is commonly involved in the heaviest manual labor. Contrary to the image of the effete artist, most of them are quite solid carpenters and laborers. Their art demands as much. For the most part, the visual artist is like the writer in preferring to work in solitude. This may be true of the composer as well... but the musician and the other members of the performing arts must commonly thrive upon an audience. I think that the question may not have gone far because we imagine that "living the literary life" (or the artistic life) rarely fits some stereotype. It means something different and is experienced differently by each individual writer/book lover.

Even so, 'Guild ...


-x-


And there's one other thing to be considered: there are artists who come from rich backgrounds, and artists who come from poor backgrounds. Both life origins make artists. V. VanGogh, for instance ... I'd hate to have a life like his!

Among the few people who consider themselves artists, even fewer have a 3000-book library ... Or wish to.

I don't think an artist is a bibliophile necessarily, although I agree with you that artists search and experiment on neighbour arts (writers go to music and to painting and sculpture, painters go to books -- of course! -- and to music, musicians go to literature and to science (specially physics and astronomy!) ...). And a writer, particularly, there have one of two main interests: History or daily-life. (Or both.)

Only, History is very important to a writer, because it's speech, and because literature, in its way, tries to imitate reality (to some extent, or some sorts of it) and, in order to do so, it has to make historical sense. But I'm talking about literature.

Jorge Borges the Argentinian goes a lot into mythology ... It's a way of using History, I think. Of making his ground for coherence of some sort.

Poetry not always searches for coherence, but, many times, much more for breaking it. As well as the visual arts.

Jorge Borges was a bibliophile, I can say.

I like Rembrandt, but I think that all he read in his life was the bible. If ever. (Was he before the press or after, can't recall, by memory ...) (As well as I forget his first name ... Shame on me.) And he didn't wish, I think, to have a big library, but possibly a bigger studio.

I think I mistook VanGogh for Monet ... One of these two had a miserable life! Awgh!

[Bitterfly]

The point is though, Prose is always trying to match poetry, because it is, in the contemporary sense, merely corseted poetry. The power of literature is in the manipulation of the word, and if you write prose, your abilities are somewhat limited.

You can't make prose into some kind of frustrated poetry, even if the expression you use is very pretty! I suspect that you too often forget the importance of imagination in art: words are undeniably important in order to create an imaginative world, but so are narratives. And some prose is more concerned with telling a story, simply, or thinking- something that can be done, but in my opinion with less success, in verse. I agree that some writers are on the threshold (Lawrence, for instance) for others are prose artists through and through.

I guess though, when it comes down to it, grafting forms is certainly a good idea, and it's strange that very few people do it, though the reason is pretty easy to see. To master one art form is unbelievably difficult, yet to master two is far harder.

I'd say that opera is already a good hybrid form: music, dance, visual arts, and literature (even if the lyrics are often quite uninteresting). Didn't Wagner dream of "total art"?

So, what about the life of a poet. Does a poet live of what he does, or is he a common office worker like me? Or a poet during the days of college only, and after that, buries his art, "forever more"? ... (Or do they all die too young for being noted before that happened?)

Lots of poets had "ordinary lives": Larkin, a librarian; Mallarmé, an English teacher... Makes one dream!

By the way, Stlukesguild, I knew and love quite a few of the examples you provided for us. Not all conceptual art is bad, of course, and as you said, the emperor's clothes tale is not always relevant. I like contemporary art that touches me, in which I can find beauty. But when I come across works that only prick my curiosity (as it happened in the Guggenheim Museum, for instance, with big tubes, I think, at the entrance), I'm a bit more sceptical. I suppose I'm still attached to a certain transcendance, maybe? I expect art to lead the way to something I could never have imagined myself, something higher than myself.

[Emil Miller]

Coming back to the original post, you can forget about laying about drinking absinthe and take a look at what real artistic endeavour requires from a writer. The following is my translation ( for what it is worth ) of a passage from `Schwere Stunde` (Difficult Hour) by Thomas Mann. The short story describes a late night hour when Schiller cannot sleep because he has a mental block in finishing his play Don Carlos.

He stood by the stove and blinked with painfully tired eyes over to his work, from which he had fled, this burden, this pressure, this torment of conscience, this fearful task that was his pride and his misery, his heaven and his damnation. It dragged itself, it marked time, it stood still again and again. The weather was to blame and his illness and his tiredness. Or was it the work itself? A joyless prison consecrated to doubt.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Coming back to the original post, you can forget about laying about drinking absinthe and take a look at what real artistic endeavour requires from a writer. The following is my translation ( for what it is worth ) of a passage from `Schwere Stunde` (Difficult Hour) by Thomas Mann. The short story describes a late night hour when Schiller cannot sleep because he has a mental block in finishing his play Don Carlos.

He stood by the stove and blinked with painfully tired eyes over to his work, from which he had fled, this burden, this pressure, this torment of conscience, this fearful task that was his pride and his misery, his heaven and his damnation. It dragged itself, it marked time, it stood still again and again. The weather was to blame and his illness and his tiredness. Or was it the work itself? A joyless prison consecrated to doubt.

No, if the literary life doesn't involve laying around, sipping absinthe with artist friends, debating the literary merits of some obscure Greek poet or pondering the value of postmodernist expressionism; then I'm out. Or I'm with Keats with the whole "if it doesn't come then it shouldn't come at all" sort of thing.

I know the reality is the real, the tiredness, the misery, but I prefer the unreality of imaginary bliss, I prefer the untrue, true, literary life.

(As I sit here trawling through Moll Flanders with a pen in one hand and a cheap glass of French red in the other, with a head fresh of insults received from the day job in the school - divine I’m sure.)

[stlukesguild]

Among the few people who consider themselves artists, even fewer have a 3000-book library ... Or wish to.

Yes... 3000 is quite sizable... even for a writer... I will admit. But not as rare as you may imagine... at least not in this day of inexpensive books. Of my 3000 books nearly a third (perhaps a quarter) are actually accounted for by art books: monographs, art history surveys, art criticism, technical manuals, museum and gallery exhibition catalogs, etc... Such is most certainly not uncommon with most of the artists I know. I might also add... there is a painting by the American painter R.B. Kitaj entitled Unpacking My Books that has always made me laugh. As an incurable (and successful) bibliophile Kitaj accumulated a sizable library... one in which he often found himself rediscovering forgotten books only as a result of needing to pack and un-pack his library when moving. Having moved some 7 or 8 times since college this is an experience I am more than familiar with.

I don't think an artist is a bibliophile necessarily, although I agree with you that artists search and experiment on neighbour arts (writers go to music and to painting and sculpture, painters go to books -- of course! -- and to music, musicians go to literature and to science (especially physics and astronomy!) ...)...

I certainly agree. I would be hard-put to suggest that there is anything that is an absolute necessity for the artist/poet/composer/dramatist. How well read was Bach? How versed in painting was Mozart? How experienced in music was Goya? Indeed... one would not need to look that hard to find writers, or artists, or composers that were in no way experts in their own field. The scholar and the artist are not necessarily one and the same. But perhaps that points a bit toward my own ideals as the what it means to be an artist. I have long admired the Renaissance ideal of the artist/scholar that often was educated in a broad array of the arts: Brunelleschi, Michelangelo, Alberti, Leonardo, etc...

I like Rembrandt, but I think that all he read in his life was the Bible. If ever.

You may be right. It certainly was the most important book... at least as far as can be seen in his art. But is reality he was quite successful early on... until the death of his first wife... and he certainly had the wherewithal to afford more books.

Was he before the press or after, can't recall, by memory ...

Well after... 1600s.

As well as I forget his first name ... Shame on me...

Rembrandt was his first name... the rest of his name was Harmenzoen van Rijn

And he didn't wish, I think, to have a big library, but possibly a bigger studio.

Perhaps... but if he were a bibliophile he might have preferred the bigger library to the bigger home/studio. I can spend far more on my library because I spend far less upon my cars.

[stlukesguild]

Still, it would be interesting to see someone build off of the graphic novel, and create something in a more literary vein. The concept is interesting, but most just read like thick comic books. I think the problem is the artists make sure the text matches the images, and is contained within the image, rather than letting the text and image conflict, or contradict, or even not be formed as speech.

Certainly the graphic novel has potential. The strongest work to now has largely been satire... R.Crumb is perhaps the strongest... coming off as "the Breughel of our time," as Robert Hughes put it.



Among the "serious graphic novels" one immediately thinks of Art Spiegelman's Maus



And Ben Katchor's work:



Most of the rest often seems to strike me as far stronger in terms of imagery... quite often cinemagraphic... than as literature:



This is as true of much of the Japanese anime:



Even, for instance, poetry backed by abstract art could be very interesting. But I guess such a thing would be impossible -

Actually such work is not only possible... but quite common. But you are of course speaking of highly limited editions for the most part: livre d'artist or "artist's books". Such highly prized books have been produced by Picasso, Matisse, Miro... and continue to be produced today. Earlier such works would include the books of Blake and William Morris' Kelmscott Chaucer.

Some exemplary examples might include Robert Motherwell's illuminations for Federico Garcia Lorca's Lament for Ignacio Sanchez Mejias (fold-out page)



Marc Chagall's Arabian Nights



Leonard Baskin's Auguries of Innocence



Justin Quinn's Moby Dick:



Kenneth Patchen's Painted Poems:



Tom Philip's Humument:



Michael Mazur's Dante:



...with the poetry markets like they are, I think selling a book with colored pictures would be impossible. The printing of the books would be far more than the price people would be willing to spend anyway.

You are naturally assuming that such an art would need to market itself at the mass audience, when in reality it would be and is geared toward a more "elite" (in this case "wealthy") audience. The "original" of each of these books would sell like an "original painting". Taking the livre d'artist to the next logical step, we return to what is essentially the illuminated manuscript... or the hand-made, one-of-a-kind book. The unique artist's books are in no way uncommon today... and in actuality are making a great come-back as visual artist's explore the possibilities beyond the traditional painting/drawing/sculpting:

Ronald Chase: Book of Hours

[Bitterfly]

Still, it would be interesting to see someone build off of the graphic novel, and create something in a more literary vein. The concept is interesting, but most just read like thick comic books. I think the problem is the artists make sure the text matches the images, and is contained within the image, rather than letting the text and image conflict, or contradict, or even not be formed as speech.

Certainly the graphic novel has potential. The strongest work to now has largely been satire... R.Crumb is perhaps the strongest... coming off as "the Breughel of our time," as Robert Hughes put it.

There are lots of what you call graphic novels coming out of France and Belgium. Even if they are called comic strips, some of them have undeniable artistic value - I'm thinking about the works of people such as Enki Bilal, or Loisel, or Johann Sfar (The rabbi's cat is excellent!), or Lewis Trondheim. Some are them are satirical, but others are incredibly poetic. Then you have lots who have taken the storyplots of great classics (Remembrance of things past, Don Quichotte, Peter Pan...) and sometimes those works are a success. I think comic strips here have nothing to do with what you call "comics" in the US (and possibly in Canada).

[Jozanny]

What does this have to do with anything? Many of the images posted seem as oportunistic to me as any commercialism luke decries, and perhaps that deserves its on thread, the commercial predation of artistic concept, but it is not on topic, to the degree that those of you debating it aren't referencing the topic.