What would be the vows someone would take entering the artist's life?
October 20, 2009 11:14 AM Subscribe
If the three vows of the Franciscans and Dominicans are "chastity, poverty and obedience," what might be the vows that the artist takes? (I mean artist, of course, to cover writers and so on.) I ask this question because for people in a religious order, it is useful to remember what they are sacrificing; to keep it in mind as a given.
My friend and I (we're both published novelists in our thirties) were talking last night about losing heart; the difficulty of making art when there are pretty much no rewards, often very little money, and the impossibility of knowing whether one's work will ever be valuable enough to the world to have justified all the sacrifices.
I thought the life of the artist has something to do with the life of someone who joins a religious order, but I wonder what the vows for the artist would be.
So, hive mind... what do you think?
My friend and I (we're both published novelists in our thirties) were talking last night about losing heart; the difficulty of making art when there are pretty much no rewards, often very little money, and the impossibility of knowing whether one's work will ever be valuable enough to the world to have justified all the sacrifices.
I thought the life of the artist has something to do with the life of someone who joins a religious order, but I wonder what the vows for the artist would be.
So, hive mind... what do you think?
poverty, poverty and poverty.
posted by The Pantless Wonder at 11:26 AM on October 20, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by The Pantless Wonder at 11:26 AM on October 20, 2009 [3 favorites]
Craft: respect for all those who came before, who made your art possible in the first place.
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 11:32 AM on October 20, 2009
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 11:32 AM on October 20, 2009
Generosity of Spirit. Gratitude.
Curiosity. Fortitude. Open heart. Sense of humor.
An uncomplaining attitude.
The relentless pursuit of a bad idea.
posted by Benjamin Nushmutt at 11:41 AM on October 20, 2009
Curiosity. Fortitude. Open heart. Sense of humor.
An uncomplaining attitude.
The relentless pursuit of a bad idea.
posted by Benjamin Nushmutt at 11:41 AM on October 20, 2009
Poverty, obscurity and doubtfulness.
posted by yellowbinder at 11:45 AM on October 20, 2009
posted by yellowbinder at 11:45 AM on October 20, 2009
You might find Sister Corita's Rules for Artists interesting.
For me it's three p's - process, perseverance, and poverty.
posted by bradbane at 11:49 AM on October 20, 2009
For me it's three p's - process, perseverance, and poverty.
posted by bradbane at 11:49 AM on October 20, 2009
creativity, honesty, integrity
posted by dnesan at 11:56 AM on October 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by dnesan at 11:56 AM on October 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Good question.
I suppose for me it's to always give unto others in terms of beauty, skills and starting points. To expand a bit: it's to only make things that I am proud of, to always share skills with anyone willing to learn, and always be open about other people building on my ideas (ie: the Shepard Fairey kerfluffle).
posted by 1f2frfbf at 12:21 PM on October 20, 2009
I suppose for me it's to always give unto others in terms of beauty, skills and starting points. To expand a bit: it's to only make things that I am proud of, to always share skills with anyone willing to learn, and always be open about other people building on my ideas (ie: the Shepard Fairey kerfluffle).
posted by 1f2frfbf at 12:21 PM on October 20, 2009
Dedication, sincerity, confidence.
(I feel compelled to comment that the recurrence of "poverty" in this thread saddens me. There are plenty of successful artists, successful people in other fields who pursue the arts as second career, and many other careers that may lead to poverty. The stereotype of the impoverished, drifting artist does nothing but contribute to a decline of culture and a surplus of MBAs.)
posted by quarterframer at 12:26 PM on October 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
(I feel compelled to comment that the recurrence of "poverty" in this thread saddens me. There are plenty of successful artists, successful people in other fields who pursue the arts as second career, and many other careers that may lead to poverty. The stereotype of the impoverished, drifting artist does nothing but contribute to a decline of culture and a surplus of MBAs.)
posted by quarterframer at 12:26 PM on October 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
A different tack, perhaps, probably somewhat controversial but based on my personal beliefs:
I don't think art can have vows. Vows are taken out of some sort of allegiance to a divine or semi-divine entity. Art isn't divine or semi-divine – it's absolutely neutral, like driving, breathing, or walking – and taking vows to it requires at least a smidgen of some kind of deification of art which romanticizes away the immediate and practical experience of the artist. It's easy to be romantic like that in our time, when we have little opinion of our own on the subject but an accretion of cultural baggage surrounding the term which tends to urge us to see "the artist" as some high priest of longing and spiritual exaltation.
Bluntly put, if you don't think your art will be of any use to any human being at all, there's no reason to make it. That's the practical reality. Art isn't some hoary god who pines away in the aether, and as such sacrifice in the service of that 'god' is at best misguided. Peeling back some of the layers of cultural baggage: the ancient Greek word for 'art' was 'poesia,' whence we derive our word 'poetry.' 'Poesia' simply meant 'to make,' as in 'make a poem' or 'make a door' or 'make a shoe,' and there was no difference in meaning in those uses. Our word 'art' is a little different; it means 'things made to be experienced by other people,' but I think it's very important to keep that definition down to just that simple meaning.
The purpose of art is to communicate something of value to other human beings. That's a good in itself, a thick, meaty, hedonistic pleasure in fact. I sincerely believe that there is no higher pleasure than sharing a part of yourself with another human being in discussion; all art is simply an extension of that pleasure, a way of sharing experiences of the eyes, ears, and even soul with other human beings. The partaking in and sharing of pleasure isn't a sacrifice, though it sometimes might seem to be in those times when it's easy to forget the person with whom the work will be shared (since that person may not even have been born yet). However, the pleasure returns when one keeps in mind that that sharing of something valuable and precious is the whole purpose of the exercise.
In short, since art is about a kind of hedonistic pleasure, acting as though it's about privation and self-sacrifice (like the taking of religious vows) doesn't make sense. If there's a motto or inscription to be put upon the creation of art to remind it of its roots, it should be something like: "this is for the meeting of human hearts and minds and the pleasure I get therefrom."
posted by koeselitz at 1:36 PM on October 20, 2009
I don't think art can have vows. Vows are taken out of some sort of allegiance to a divine or semi-divine entity. Art isn't divine or semi-divine – it's absolutely neutral, like driving, breathing, or walking – and taking vows to it requires at least a smidgen of some kind of deification of art which romanticizes away the immediate and practical experience of the artist. It's easy to be romantic like that in our time, when we have little opinion of our own on the subject but an accretion of cultural baggage surrounding the term which tends to urge us to see "the artist" as some high priest of longing and spiritual exaltation.
Bluntly put, if you don't think your art will be of any use to any human being at all, there's no reason to make it. That's the practical reality. Art isn't some hoary god who pines away in the aether, and as such sacrifice in the service of that 'god' is at best misguided. Peeling back some of the layers of cultural baggage: the ancient Greek word for 'art' was 'poesia,' whence we derive our word 'poetry.' 'Poesia' simply meant 'to make,' as in 'make a poem' or 'make a door' or 'make a shoe,' and there was no difference in meaning in those uses. Our word 'art' is a little different; it means 'things made to be experienced by other people,' but I think it's very important to keep that definition down to just that simple meaning.
The purpose of art is to communicate something of value to other human beings. That's a good in itself, a thick, meaty, hedonistic pleasure in fact. I sincerely believe that there is no higher pleasure than sharing a part of yourself with another human being in discussion; all art is simply an extension of that pleasure, a way of sharing experiences of the eyes, ears, and even soul with other human beings. The partaking in and sharing of pleasure isn't a sacrifice, though it sometimes might seem to be in those times when it's easy to forget the person with whom the work will be shared (since that person may not even have been born yet). However, the pleasure returns when one keeps in mind that that sharing of something valuable and precious is the whole purpose of the exercise.
In short, since art is about a kind of hedonistic pleasure, acting as though it's about privation and self-sacrifice (like the taking of religious vows) doesn't make sense. If there's a motto or inscription to be put upon the creation of art to remind it of its roots, it should be something like: "this is for the meeting of human hearts and minds and the pleasure I get therefrom."
posted by koeselitz at 1:36 PM on October 20, 2009
I also think there is a big difference between 'sacrifice' and 'commitment to ideals'. They are not interchangeable. The monks' vows are commitments to their beliefs, not sacrifices to prove their worthiness. I think it would be more positive and beneficial to look at it in those terms, not in the 'I have to give this up' view. You do not have to give anything up at all. I would phrase it in 'what do I honor in my work that I will commit to?'
posted by Vaike at 3:10 PM on October 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Vaike at 3:10 PM on October 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Koeselitz: The disclaimer at the top of your comment that attempted to frame the comments that followed as your personal beliefs. It seems that there is a disconnect between your initial claim that you are writing about personal experiences and language in your paragraphs which seems to make broad claims about art and stuff. I bring it up because a huge chunk of art was made by people who would have said that they were inspired by the divine, some art is personal and not made for sharing, sometimes partaking in the please of art is a sacrifice tho the value of the the art hopefully out weights what is sacrificed. Your broad claims lead me to thinking about counter examples. I like thinking of counter examples, so I wouldn't care about any of that if I didn't like the core of your message:
meet human hearts and minds... share something valuable and precious... do this for pleasure.
posted by bdc34 at 3:14 PM on October 20, 2009
meet human hearts and minds... share something valuable and precious... do this for pleasure.
posted by bdc34 at 3:14 PM on October 20, 2009
nímwunnan: I'd like to know how koeselitz has come to his conclusions. How much room does art take in his life or the life or his loved ones?
I'm unemployed right now, but I'm trying to scrape together enough cash to get the cheapest piano I can find since I'm currently renting a place that has room for it. I already own an accordion, a guitar, a mandolin, a fiddle, and a charango, and play them all with varying facility. I build my own amplifiers and distortion units. I'm a writer, and own two hundred or so books. I have a record collection with at least 800 vinyl LPs. My undergraduate degree is in philosophy, and one of my minors was in visual art. I also have a pretty avid interest in film, although it's hard to show anything concrete to demonstrate that.
When I say that art is simple, practical, and unsentimental, I guess I should also point out that it's nearly the most important thing in my life.
I'm lucky as hell to get to do all that stuff, I think; I'm sorry if my comment wasn't really straightforward, but I'm not trying to run down art or artists. I see a song as a song, a set of noises put together by a person; it doesn't matter where I hear it, it only matters what someone was doing when they put it together. Since Duchamp people have been arguing about contextualization of art, whether it's still art if it's not in a frame or a museum, et cetera; I feel like there's just so much cultural baggage surrounding art, and especially the "cult of the artist," that it's easy to get wrapped up in that and forget what you really love about expression. I like the Eastern simplicity of this view: art is only making things that mean something to people. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not really a sacrifice when there are such rewards, and although I know people have to work hard for it I think it's most important to point to the fantastic things art can do.
posted by koeselitz at 3:25 PM on October 20, 2009
I'm unemployed right now, but I'm trying to scrape together enough cash to get the cheapest piano I can find since I'm currently renting a place that has room for it. I already own an accordion, a guitar, a mandolin, a fiddle, and a charango, and play them all with varying facility. I build my own amplifiers and distortion units. I'm a writer, and own two hundred or so books. I have a record collection with at least 800 vinyl LPs. My undergraduate degree is in philosophy, and one of my minors was in visual art. I also have a pretty avid interest in film, although it's hard to show anything concrete to demonstrate that.
When I say that art is simple, practical, and unsentimental, I guess I should also point out that it's nearly the most important thing in my life.
I'm lucky as hell to get to do all that stuff, I think; I'm sorry if my comment wasn't really straightforward, but I'm not trying to run down art or artists. I see a song as a song, a set of noises put together by a person; it doesn't matter where I hear it, it only matters what someone was doing when they put it together. Since Duchamp people have been arguing about contextualization of art, whether it's still art if it's not in a frame or a museum, et cetera; I feel like there's just so much cultural baggage surrounding art, and especially the "cult of the artist," that it's easy to get wrapped up in that and forget what you really love about expression. I like the Eastern simplicity of this view: art is only making things that mean something to people. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not really a sacrifice when there are such rewards, and although I know people have to work hard for it I think it's most important to point to the fantastic things art can do.
posted by koeselitz at 3:25 PM on October 20, 2009
bdc34: Koeselitz: The disclaimer at the top of your comment that attempted to frame the comments that followed as your personal beliefs. It seems that there is a disconnect between your initial claim that you are writing about personal experiences and language in your paragraphs which seems to make broad claims about art and stuff.
Yeah, I know. I actually had a lot more 'I thinks' and 'I believes' and 'it seems to mes' in there, but I cut them out; it seemed like that was implied, right? I mean, anything I say is really just something I believe anyhow. But it might sound as though I'm slipping into some sort of bombastic arrogance that claims universal truth – in fact, that's what I think was most unclear about that comment – so I'll say this: it would be foolish to champion art as basic dialogue between human beings without welcoming any expression with joy, even expressions of the notion that my initial championing might have been quite wrong. So I'll dedicate myself to welcoming disagreement and discussion, and be content when people disagree with what I've said above; after all, if I'm absolutely wrong, I'm better off if people tell me.
posted by koeselitz at 3:36 PM on October 20, 2009
Yeah, I know. I actually had a lot more 'I thinks' and 'I believes' and 'it seems to mes' in there, but I cut them out; it seemed like that was implied, right? I mean, anything I say is really just something I believe anyhow. But it might sound as though I'm slipping into some sort of bombastic arrogance that claims universal truth – in fact, that's what I think was most unclear about that comment – so I'll say this: it would be foolish to champion art as basic dialogue between human beings without welcoming any expression with joy, even expressions of the notion that my initial championing might have been quite wrong. So I'll dedicate myself to welcoming disagreement and discussion, and be content when people disagree with what I've said above; after all, if I'm absolutely wrong, I'm better off if people tell me.
posted by koeselitz at 3:36 PM on October 20, 2009
I like the phrase, "being available in response", taken from Weschler's book on Robert Irwin, 'Seeing is Forgetting the Name of the Thing One Sees".
posted by BigSky at 8:53 PM on October 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by BigSky at 8:53 PM on October 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
« Older How can I be a good softball/baseball umpire? | Looking for a technology book I read in the 80's. Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by extrabox at 11:23 AM on October 20, 2009 [7 favorites]