Telling the Truth
I have only one rule with art: it has to speak to me. Salvador Dali speaks to me, Andy Warhol just doesn’t. Akram Khan speaks to me, Matthew Bourne just doesn’t. Radiohead speaks to me, Coldplay just doesn’t. If it doesn’t speak to you, if it doesn’t move you, then I think you can safely say it’s not doing its job. But then the age-old question arises: do we believe in taste? Or do good and bad exist? As Kant says, it’s aestheticism vs. subjective taste. Do we believe in taste/opinion, or are there standards?
I honestly don’t know. I’m a snob, so to a large extent, I believe there are some standards. Good and bad is a delicate subject, one hard to grasp. If you are someone who does believe in good and bad, then the good is indeed very hard to achieve. Grappling with this distinction can be a wild goose chase. Instead - I was taught from a very young age - be truthful, and you will never fail.
Truthfulness - maybe that’s my other rule.
At a dance student at the age of 6 1/2, I only saw passion around me. I saw those who were wholeheartedly committed to what they were doing. They truly believed it, believed in it, and therefore, they made you believe it too. They loved it, they embraced it, they treated the dance with such care and tenderness, with such love and dedication, with such respect and reverence. And they taught me to love it. They taught me, along with posture and precision and discipline, to love it and embody it. To bow down to it, to become it. To conquer it, but also to let it conquer you. To this day, onstage and off, this is what shines through all else when you see these people; the love for what they are doing. The simple, pure, wholesome love. And even if they make mistakes, or the lighting is wrong, or the costumes are not just so (and they always are, anyway) you don’t see anything but this complete and total absorption in what they are doing. This is truthfulness. And this is what draws me to them, time after time.
Once older, I met Tracy. She’s taught me a lot of things; all of them important. But the most important lesson I learned from her is to tell the truth. She taught me that to ‘act’ is not to become a character, but to find that part of you that is that character. It’s about searching within yourself to reveal all the parts of you that are good, evil, pathetic, strong, ugly, beautiful. It’s about discovering that you have the capacity to be anyone. You are that person, somewhere, in some small corner of your being, you are. Let it out. This is easy theoretically, but difficult to achieve. And this what we’re always trying to do: to reveal those lesser explored parts of ourselves. To achieve authenticity, emotional truth - she calls it. To not ‘act’, but be. And this is truthfulness.
So I don’t know if there is good and bad in art. But I do know that if you are truthful, then it will naturally do its job in speaking to its audience. If you are honest, it will draw them in. If you tell the truth, then they will relate to it. Because those truths are universal. And in the end, that’s what art is for: to tell stories that are universal, that cross boundaries of time, gender, race, ethnicity, even reality. If you mean it, really, really mean it: then your audience will get it, they will feel it. Dali meant it, Akram Kham means it every time, Radiohead meant every word, every chord. If your intention is honest, then your message will be clear.
I agree completely. Good post.
If it does’nt move one’s spirit, it is’nt art.
Comment by Jack Point — August 24, 2009 @ 10:13 am
Nice one Electra.
Andy Warhol hardly ’spoke’ to anyone, as his films would no doubt attest to, but his success with his ‘art’ obviously jarred enough sensibilities to make many folk move for their wallets.
That whole thing about ‘aestheticism vs. subjective taste’ is a bit more than tricky, as it could be argued that ‘aesthetics’ must be based on ’subjective’ in the end.
And hey, you MUST know that the original Electra was pretty much ‘created’ by Warhol, right?
Comment by Java Jones — August 25, 2009 @ 6:51 am
hmmm……
does this mean that if audience does not respond, artist is not honest and does not mean it ?
what happens if some ppl respond and other don’t ( very common thing, in most ppl’s real world experience ) ? in other words what if there are boundaries ( of various kinds ( including, but not just, the ones mentioned in post ) in response generated ? does that mean it is a half truth, since it is not universal truth ? what if there is at least one individual who does not respond ? and since such non response from at least one is probably universal, does that mean there is no universal truth? is that universal truth; that there is no universal truth ? if there isn’t any universal truth, is there are art according to you ?
is it in “bad taste” to ask such stupid questions from “honest” artists?
well nuts are like that, they are always in “bad taste” and don’t care for others “sensibilities”. a nut may think that “honesty” and “truth” may not be always in “good taste” and may even taste bitter. they probably like the bitter taste.
nuts may even think that artists should not care about “universal truth” and can still be artists and may even be more honest bc of that ( if there is such a thing as “more honest “) . they may think that certain ppl are spouting silly dishonest pretentious nonsense and holes .
but obviously nuts are nuts. what do they know? huh? they can’t be honest or truthful.they just stupid. that’s that !
Comment by sittingnut — August 25, 2009 @ 7:45 am
i agree… art has to speak to you. or make you a part of it in some way…
great post!
Comment by Ruvin — August 27, 2009 @ 12:03 pm