 |
| Add captioCopyright 2018 A. Barake |
The usual trope about the necessary relationship between the
individual's pursuit of art and its potential for universal appeal makes it a
spectrum, or a see-saw, where some classic works seem to transcend the
creator to the point of redefining them, think of Kafka for example, and others are callow self-centered curiosities, vicarious navel-gazing porn, something we can escape into for a while, think of Leonard Cohen, or of
Madonna.
Being a spectrum that ranges from the personal to the universal, and the laws of statistics being what they
are (more on that later), most artists balance with one foot on each
side of the fulcrum to make a go at it.
Since
I am using a categorization argument, I must also talk of those who create
entire new universals, new micro-cultures, new ways of seeing, by extending
the culture. Movements are easier in groups, thus marketing attempts that wow the weak-minded critics, but once in a while, a huge,
huge ego leave the packs behind, through mono-maniacal focus and dedication. This is a special flavour of self-centredness. This is
what
we label as genius.
The cost is to the normal. You cannot be outside the norm and live normally. Looking at examples,
like Picasso, Frank Lloyd Wright, Hemingway, we see the huge personal toll
on their close ones. Relationships have to come second to the
work.
Since we learn by aping others, there will always be minor artists who
embrace the self-centredness first and then hope for the
universality.
What easier subject to study than the one we are in love
with most. The self-portrait is a rite of passage, like the nude. Without a real muse, I can be my own. Even a muse
can act as an amplifier to my ego.
There are so many writers, musicians,
visual artists, who can do no better than tell us stories about themselves. The ones we hear above the din are the ones who tell us with style, those that rise above the averaging noise, that can be seen through the grass, but the intensity,
quirkiness, and interest is no substitute for transcendence.
Define
transcendence? It is a tear in the fabric of the ordinary. It can be a
distillation of events that has not occurred to others - therefore something
new, always a winning formula, but more commonly, it is a new
combination of
the ordinary that falls outside the usual intersection of normal bell
curves.
This brings me to the statistical discussion that I promised earlier. Someone wise said that statistics is the mathematics used to make sense of stories. What that means is that we can use statistics to understand how
stories are related, and how likely they can related to patterns. And
patterns are the stuff of
thought, of art. Patterns are things that occur because the environment is what it is, so a pattern is a tendency, and from there we can rise up through the layers of entropy towards culture, toward life and art.
Statistics came into its
own in the early twentieth century, and became so useful that it is now
essential in industrial production, in fact a Guinness employee - yes the
dark beverage company - discovered a family of distribution curves that help us "know" the level of uncertainty of events or data from very scarce samples, from very short stories, because stories follow natural patterns.
Statistics is
counter-intuitive because it is not about individuals, but about groups,
about populations, and we are not naturally empathetic, we are competitive, we
are locked inside one vision, inside the self and the self wants to think itself unique. Statistics is the tonic to free-will arguments.
Art has to be on the edges
of the bell curves, yet it has to make the bell ring from
there.
