Painter, sculptor, printmaker...Shaman? Magician? Outsider? In
need of psychological counseling? Are we the supersensitive
antennae of humanity and on the cutting edge of culture, or are
we throwbacks to more natural animal states? Perhaps we are
the astute observers of society and the crafty coyote of literature? And
what must be said about our everyday lives of being parents, business
people, educators, employees, and otherwise good citizens?
The oft quoted great contributor to the understanding of myths,
Joseph Campbell, had intriguing, indeed, wonderful things to say
about the role of artists in the world’s communities. He
was author and teacher made especially prominent in the public
mind thru television interviews with Bill Moyers, and thru his
own well received books on the subject of myths in history and
in the world’s contemporary societies. (See The Power
of Myth, with Moyers, 1988.) He spoke of artists as
having an important essential place in communities, sometimes
almost a mystical function, necessary as we explore and express
what others do not sense, or express what others may sense but
fail to explore.
Moyers asks Campbell (pg. 99): “Who interprets the
divinity inherent in nature for us today? Who are the shamans? Who
interprets unseen things for us?”
Campbell responds: “It is the function of the artist
to do this. The artist is the one who communicates myth for
today. But he has to be an artist who understands mythology
and humanity and isn’t simply a sociologist with a program
for you”. And on pg. 217: “There is a cauldron
of plenty in the mansion of the god of the sea, down in the depths
of the unconscious. It is out of the depths of the unconscious
that energies of life come to us. This cauldron is the inexhaustible
source, the center, the bubbling spring from which all life proceeds.”
It is likely that artists relish the idea that we might play such
a provocative and important role, for if generally recognized
it could elevate us to some more positive visible level in our
culture. Of course, there are other opinions to be heard.
“... {these} artists do not claim they experience the world
more deeply than others. They are not equipped with special
antennae which permit them to feel what others do not feel. What
these artists do possess, however, and what all artists - poets,
dancers and musicians - possess, is the ability to take experience
and make it concrete so that feelings may be shared...Always it
is the sudden revelation in a familiar place, the moment of memorable
clarity when what has been seen often is seen as if for the first
time.”
(From The Artist as Native: Reinventing Regionalism, Alan Gussow,
p.13)
Yes! There is much to be said and probably argued over. Especially
if we add to the roles we play, to the artist’s face as
seen by the public, the title of Entertainer.
Whoa! You say! I am not an entertainer. That’s
not my job and not why I create! I am above serving as entertainment
for the masses! We are talking about Art with the capital
“A” here, you know...one of Humankind’s greatest
achievements, and a process with product that supersedes mere
“entertainment. Well, reader, before you trash that
idea entirely, consider that in our idealized myopia we might
be failing to see the whole picture.
THE NAKED ARTIST EXPOSED
When you think about the following artists, what images come to
mind? Picasso? Dali? Pollack? Warhol? Sure,
you see some of their notable art, but I am willing to bet cash
that some of the images you have in your minds are observations
of these artists in action, painting, captured on film or somehow
otherwise mugging before a camera. And what of these other
artists? Matisse? DeKooning? Christo? Chihuly? If
you have been attentive to the media, especially television, you
have seen these persons in the public eye...entertaining us with
their art, their actions, their persona and celebrity. They
might appear animated in Public Television art historical films
or serve as sidebars in public topical scuffling such as the recent
“Blue Shirt” controversy in Milwaukee (which made
the national news because it was a more sensational subject and
fun public entertainment).
Let us consider one contemporary artist mentioned above who has
been truly recently elevated to world prominence. Dale Chihuly
has clearly emerged as the most visible artist in the field of
art glass since L. C. Tiffany in the early 20th Century. This
has been the result of the exceptional objects emerging from his
studio, and his unusual ability to organize and complete huge
projects across borders and continents. He gained the attention,
support and pride of communities and museums in the Portland Oregon
area thru his successes, his likable energetic personality...and
his distinctive eye patch.
Soon enough his success and uniqueness received national and world
wide attention. How was that exposure achieved? Well,
in good part because he developed one aspect of his production
that few artists have established or even considered. He
has created his own personal advertising engine producing publicity,
publications and videos in an ongoing flood of promotion and successful
exposure. He has developed an entourage of talented people
dealing with design, execution and promotion. As he is talked
about and extolled, so more expansion of his reputation occurs.
For example, I have personally encountered Dale Chihuly’s
own company-made videos on at least 5 occasions over public television,
and by chance seen them shown in at least 4 museums in Wisconsin. Multiply
this by hundreds of such viewings across the US and World, and
estimate the impact he has made “for himself about himself”. He
and his entourage truly have “grown” him into a form
of entertainment by making it so easy for the media to expose
his genius by simply “popping in” one of his videos,
perusing one of his large format “coffee table” books,
or encountering one of his many press releases. Then fortuitously
beyond that, having the word spread that his art is being purchased
by museums and celebrities (like Elton John) further enhances
an already full blown reputation. Chihuly has become an industry,
and with an aggressive search for exposure, he and his entourage
are a self conscious form of entertainment. For the record,
he is not merely hype...his work is exceptional and his accolades
well deserved.
TIME RELEASE ENTERTAINMENT
Besides the direct link of visual artists gaining attention thru
their publicized actions and promoted personas and reputations,
there is a less distinct/obvious definition of entertainment that
comes into play for visual artists. The Public seeks activities
to fill in its day to day life. Persons look for activities
for themselves and families, for enrichment, to learn as well
as experiencing some pleasure. Museums and galleries serve
as places for the Public to fill out its time, by having paintings,
sculpture, photographs, etc. quietly “entertain”. The
creative acts of the artists, the brush strokes and hammer blows,
the intellectual and physical dances necessary to bring an art
work into being, are witnessed later thru a normal delayed expression
as they appear in galleries and museums. Our work entertains
and enriches long after the active process of making it is over.
A report heard recently on public radio informed the listeners
that museums and galleries draw more people on an annual basis
than do all professional sports venues combined. That is
more people than attend football games, baseball, hockey, tennis,
soccer...etc. These museum attending people often pay money
for entry so that they will be enriched, entertained...and spend
time for some form of gratification.
Of course we recognize that the performing arts provide entertainment,
and I do not recall a single instance of ever hearing performers
publicly complain about being known as entertainers. The
actor, whether on stage, TV or film, and whether or not possessing
great skill, is paid to give a performance...to entertain us. The
actor, of course, is an artist acting as conduit for authors,
novelists and/or screenwriters, who themselves participate in
the entertainment field providing reading material to enrich and
flesh out our lives. The Director, costume designer, the
sound effects artist, the stage crew, all these contribute to
the entertainment that the public pays to see. Do we hear
the performing artists making statements that they are aloof from
the ticket buying public? Do they take a stance that they
can exist without the interaction of viewers...viewers who they
entertain?
Perhaps we visual artists, E.G. painters and sculptors, have been,
and still are, in some state of denial about our roles. Original
creative motivations initially might seem totally removed from
an entertainment endeavor as we work in our studios and garrets,
but...why is the art created? Is it not created to communicate? Is
it not created, usually and generally, so that some other persons
can see it and in some way interact? Is it not created to
express feelings, moods, and ideas in a similar fashion to the
performing arts? Is it not presented to other people so that
they will spend some time...some thought...and maybe even some
money? This interaction between artist and viewer is
so close to a form of entertainment that there may not really
be a difference. When elevated to the heights of promotion
and exposure as in the case of a Dale Chihuly, there cannot be
much doubt at all that visual art and artists can be entertainment.
AIN’T GOT NO RESPECT
There are professionals in our American society who are generally
respected, some held to very high esteem, some with stereotypes
of their own. Take for example the doctors, lawyers, plumbers,
architects, accountants, teachers, lawyers, electricians, and
so forth. These people have “special knowledge”. They
have training and experience in specialized fields which are usually
considered indispensable in society...but as professionals, they
are not considered entertainers. (Forget the fictitious soaps
and other TV programs about doctors and lawyers).
Artists also may be professionals in their field, pursuing studies,
with explorations and experience that give them special knowledge,
but they also often carry the baggage reputation that artists
are “weird”. Does the word eccentric come to
mind? It cannot be denied that certain prominent artists
of the past have been obviously out of the ordinary. At the
top of the famous “odd category” we can find Van Gogh,
Picasso, Warhol, Dali, Pollack. While their art production
may or may not have set them apart in their own time, their lifestyles,
quirky natures, and sometimes perceived outrageous actions certainly
extended the public perception of artists being peculiar. Of
course, anyone achieving visible status in the public eye, no
matter what field they are in, will have more scrutiny applied,
thereby revealing secrets which would otherwise have remained
unbroadcast. It also must be said that those reporting about
artists have excelled these reputations because reporters have
relished exposing quirks of personality, making for a good story.
And, yes, there are the artists who consciously and intellectually
have made the choice to run risks. These are persons willing
to test boundaries, to really attempt to extend sensibilities,
to shock and even to outrage. Often such artists perceive
characteristics of their cultures as being flawed, in need of
exposure, discussion, and alteration. Along with this willingness
to treat that which is observed with humor, disrespect and/or
an outsider’s point of view, there is also the desire to
gain the attention for promotional purposes...to get themselves
and their work noticed. They know that outrageous behavior
and controversy garners desired attention, and sometimes to useful
end.
“Countercultures have been a constant manifestation of human
life in all types of human societies. They constitute the
experimental task forces which call attention to the need for
changes and thereby help humankind to renew its social structures.”
From
“Beast of Angel? (Choices that make us human), pg. 185,
by Rene Dubos
As for the bulk of artists, it is likely that for every noticeably
odd personality in the ranks there are dozens of fairly normal
acting men and women. Do we have scientific studies that
distinguish whether or not there are more artists under psychoanalysis
than other professions? How many of us can mention an oddball
doctor, dentist, lawyer, or peculiar plumber? How do we know
that even our quiet neighbors are not harboring some closely held
unusual personal habits that just don’t gain media attention?
(Think Psycho).
THE NEIGHBORS DON’T ENTERTAIN
Our quiet friends and neighbors, relatives and strangers who do
not seek attention will not usually garner it. Artists, for
the most part, need the exposure and attention to communicate
their ideas and increase their visibility. Having their art
work presented to people by whatever means, even if it is just
placed in front of the public for quiet consideration, does seem
to introduce that art work as a form of entertainment, with the
creator being the entertainer. Certainly, the art may
be more than that. Art might be a revelation of ideas and
techniques. It might be a form of education. It may
warrant the place in cultural history of being among the highest
aspirations and achievements of Humankind. However, it does
not gain any place, let alone become a cultural icon, without
some means of placing that work in front of the public...to gain
attention and attract enough notoriety so that the scribes of
Media capture it in books, film and on hard drive. Uh-huh! “Let
us entertain you”.
Is that it, then? Are artists entertainment for those who
are seeking exciting stories in the media? Are we looked
upon as sources of fun and enrichment by the public? Do some
artists seek the limelight, even sometimes being consciously eccentric
for personal and professional reasons? Yes! Of course! Who
could be more entertaining than a Shaman? Here is the mystic,
the clown, the doctor and the magician wrapped into one.
So, may I suggest to my fellow visual artists that we should take
heed? Performing artists naturally seek the attention of
media and recognize that to attract viewers they must act as entertainers. They
don’t seem to question that at all. Are there performing
artists who look forward to intentionally performing their art
without an audience? At the very least, is not a painting,
sculpture, etc. a not so silent entertainment for viewers attracted
to it, and is not the creator of that object the performer in
that interaction?
Look at your fellow visual artists who have gained recognition
and visibility during or after their own time, and consider what
extra efforts might have brought them to the forefront. Was
it just thru talent and working alone in their studios? Was
it merely good fortune and having a champion for their work? Was
there an investing of time, thought, effort and some money to
draw attention to themselves...and could that attempt to gather
attention be considered some form of entertainment?
Really, now...let me ask you that question again. Is it entertainment?
Back to Compositions