My reason for using the over inflated ego as a central element in my theory is due to its correlation with empirical “truths” about artists which, perhaps seemingly, should not be correlated, and which should thereby broaden our considerations when forming a comprehensive theory of why we create art. My reasoning for using the over inflated ego as a central part of the theory is not, however, because I consider the “over inflated ego” to be of utmost necessity in order for man to create art.
From here I get the impression that this whole vision, or theory for how art is created, came about as a reflection aimed at rationalizing your appreciation for KW’s art - I don’t know if this is accurate. If it is, could you share more about what you appreciate in him? What makes you feel he is an archetypal artist, what does this mean? I have now listened to the Sunday Service video and I did find it unexpected. Overall, based on a few other things, I must confess I am not hugely impressed. I found other American rappers of his generation way more inspired, but maybe if you share more of your thoughts around what makes him unique, others could better understand your interest, and also your theory of artistic creation.
Hmm, yeah I didn’t define art did I. How about “reaching beyond familiar sensation into the divine and framing the divine into familiar sensation”. So the formation of an idea expressed through a sensory medium. This could either include the moment Picasso formed an idea for a painting, or the execution of that vision. After all, every brush stroke is intentional. The idea evolves throughout the execution of the idea. It is not but the mechanical replication of the original idea. However, I suppose you could argue this in the case for writing music, where rhythms and melodic notes are definitive, and could be definitively captured by the original idea.
“Again, for me the answer lies in a continuum between action and art, a continuum between free and compelled artistic impulse, a continuum between expression and potential. But I suspect you see things differently?” I can’t say I quite understand what you mean here. Can you clarify this for me?
Sorry for the unclear phrasing. What I was trying to say about the nature of art is this. I don’t see any essential difference between everyday action/creation, and artistic creation. It’s only a matter of degree. Basically we are all constantly immersed in a creative process that may or may not result in a sensory form. Beyond a certain degree of dexterity with form-making, and universality of the idea called for by the creator, we usually qualify the creation as art. That is what I meant by “continuum between action and art”. And there’s also a continuum in the degree of freedom vs. necessity that we express in our creations or deeds, including artistic, and how much of “the artist’s individual element” is conveyed. Lastly, there is a continuum in how much of the ideal creation is transformed into perceptible creation. Usually we call an artist someone who has converted ideas into perceptible expressions. Your definition expresses a similar view. In a sense, your definition is a generic description of what we all constantly do, without particular reference to art. We are all constantly “reaching beyond familiar sensation (or object of perception) into the divine (into ideas)”. In this sense I said “You are as artistic in your constantly unfolding relation to the world as your own description of an artist is. You are, in your own definition, a supreme artist of every moment”. So I think there is a continuum between constantly unfolding creative understanding of the world and artistic creation.
The act of the artist reaching out to the divine is also him seeing beauty in the divine from his individual element. It is akin to communicating with the divine with a single action that has two directions of flow.It is not akin to communicating with the divine through multiple actions with a single “direction” of flow, whereby we reach out to the divine, bring the divine back to us, and then give it back in an altered form.
I think I understand, but how can the divine remain unchanging if there are these two directions of flow?
Yes, every man forms ideas, for ideas are the essence of the soul. The difference is simply that the artist is better at forming ideas than the common man. That’s all. To be clear, I suspect that the artist ingrains within himself the processes of nature which he gives new or altered life to (and again, this is a single action with two directions of flow, not multiple actions with one direction of flow). And if I am to be more thorough in my reasoning, it is not that the truth seeker acts in a fundamentally different way from the artist in this respect, but that they are differentiated by how large of a role the ego plays in interpreting the divine spirit. So I am not really attempting to propose a duality between the artist and the truth seeker. All thoughts, ideas etc originate from nature.
If I am understanding you correctly: the truth-seeker connects with nature to get in touch with ideas that he takes ‘literally’ from it, without any major creative alteration, while the artist engages in a fundamentally similar activity, but through a stronger ego, he brings alterations and new life to those ideas. I think there must be an underlying worldview (unexpressed in this thread) that forces you to default back to ego as the explanatory factor that differentiates truth-seeker from artist.
Three questions come to mind:
1. Is nature in your conception the same thing as the divine?
2. In this view, how to understand those great artists who don’t have an inflated ego? Do they have to exert themselves much more than the inflated artists, in order to create great art?
3. What do we do with these alterations that the artist brings back into nature through creative interpretation of ideas in a two-way flow? Can nature remain unchanged in that process?