I don't have big anxieties. I wish I did. I'd be much more interesting.
-Roy Lichtenstein
My sister is lucky enough (or unlucky enough) to be liked by our rich, single aunt, who took her on countless adventures around the globe. One of them being to Spain. When she returned she brought me a few prints. My favorite was Lichtenstein's "Mujer en el bano". I was probably 14 and heavily into comic books and I really dug Lichtenstein's style. I saw it as a good foil to the Expressionist pieces in a book that I had. Up to that point, I thought that all painters were dolling up Italian churchs and painting old homely ladies. Or else they were Bob Ross.
Last week, I went to the Walker Art Center to check out the Picasso exhibit and of course, it had examples of work from the many artists that he influenced. I knew that he was an inspiration to Lichtenstein, but I had never seen the depth, as evidenced in the pieces on display.
I also found out that a lot of artists hated Lichtenstein because of his adaptions of popular culture—the cartoon characters and comic book stylings. He was even sued a few times for plagerism, to no avail.
Most creative people sort of latch on to a few that they find inspirational and learn from their style, while they are developing their own voice. Lichtenstein's homages were not subtle in the least and that's one reason why people reacted to his art. It brings up the question, when your source of inspiration is so unique (Picasso, Tom Waits, Al Sharpton, Kids in the Hall, etc...) is it fair that you'll be called out more quickly than someone who's inspiration is from the Ted Danson's of the world?
Of course, it's all about your final execution, but it's easier to call out some influences than others. At any rate Picasso was a genius and somehow not pretentious.
11 comments:
What are you trying to do around here Falch? Raise the intellectual bar or something?
Essentially there is nothing new in art, everything has been thought of before. Isn't art in itself an interpretation? Rip-offs are easily identified by the blatent lack of their efforts of instilling something from themselves in their work. Take the band Great White for example, they tour the country covering Led Zeppelin note for note, and are either reviled or admired for their efforts. You could say similar things for a bazillion other musicians, artists, photographers that aren't quite as frontal about their version of the carbon copy. In the end it's what you make out of the work.
I remember in Saint Gary Koelling's class, he told us that nothing was new and that everything was already done.
Creativity, I guess, is just the new arrangement of old ideas. And the order that you place them, is what is original.
I'm not arrogent enough to say that I've put together fully original creative outputs, but to say that every thought that I've had has already been thought? Isn't that a bit pessimistic?
I mean, has anyone ever thought of Slayer jamming with Ornette Coleman and Horace Silver while John Candy interpretively dances in a red sash?!
It wasn't just Mr. Koelling that told me that. I've heard that from just about every creative mentor I've had in my life. I don't think it's pessimistic either. If art is an interpretation, you are essentially creating something that already exists in some way, shape or form. It's all how you interpret it.
I thought I was really cool at the age of 14 when Maddoo and I named our band the the GynoLortri-MEN, until years later when Paddy from Dillinger 4 told me he had the same band name when he was in junior high. Obviously we interpreted a feminine lube into an awesome sounding band name, so it wasn't like it was totally original or anything. We changed our name to Snail Sharpener shortly after, that wasn't my idea.
Is art only an interpretation though?
I think so. An idea has to stem from something.
"No ideas original, there's new under the sun. It's never what you do, but how it's done". - NAS
Isn't everything ultimatley interpretation?
Theoretically, if you come up with an "original" idea (however you define original, possible or not)aren't you merley interpreting the biophysical reactions that are occuring in your brain into some tangible or quasi-tangible encoding?
The brilliant Noam Chomsky framed it as the signifyer and the signified. It's the human mind. Such is reality. Art is one way of encoding it.
And Kudos to Monsieur Falch for raising the intellectual bar.
"..aren't you merely interpreting the biophysical reactions that are occurring in your brain into some tangible or quasi-tangible encoding?"
That just blew my mind.
I am going to go buy a copy of Confederacy of Dunces now...
Funniest novel in the history of Western civilization.
I completely agree. It's fantastic and Ignatius is one of my all-time favorite characters.
I have only read it once and don't own it, so I figure it's about time.
One of my faves too. I need to read it again. I'll just steal it from Falch when he buys it.
Post a Comment