Date Posted:11:48:52 08/16/01 Thu Author: mark van dyk Subject: This is really an interesting discussion In reply to:
Omega
's message, "Re: An answer for Adilbrand" on 12:34:00 08/15/01 Wed
We haven't had a discussion like this for some time. I find this interesting, since we have two ideas and not a lot of heat or lividness on either side. Therefore, I choose to continue! ;)
It seems to me that there are a couple of different ideas here. I read, once again, the question: "Why does a man write, if not for an audience?"
I think about myself and this question a lot, and have been discussing it with others recently. The truth about my own writings is that I don't really like investigating the "why?" of it. At first, I must admit that I simply began writing things because I was inspired by a certain subject or character or idea and felt some inner need to write it down. There was no audience for these things. I have written short stories that people insist should be published, but I have no energy to pursue the matter. On the other hand, I have a book which I would love to see published, but I certainly have never taken into consideration any audience when writing the work.
Why is any work of art created? Call it a communication with the Cosmos. I view it in this way. A man lives his life and experiences many things. In many ways I view this as the Universe's way of communicating to and through me. In some strange way I think that art is basically a communication back to the Divine. The more in tune with these forces one is, the more likely his work is to be appreciated by the masses, for they too, are simply creatures of the living Universe and have a basic understanding within them that allows them to grasp art on some level. Any need for an audience or the validation of the masses is sheer egoism and an artist will tell you that he does not care about the audience. He does not care when in the act of creation, yet to see his work appreciated is a validation of his own ability to communicate the joys, sufferings, and beauty that he has seen in his life. It is a sort of telepathic communication, more so with writing. Even the written word on some level transcends the written word and speech and mere symbolism when it is viewed by any other than the one who created it. It takes on a life of its own.
There are men who are content to create things of no lasting meaning, intended merely for sale or passing amusement, and though they may be clever enough, they are not artists. We may call these men craftsmen. It is not a lesser occupation, really, but to some degree these men seem content with their talents and their comfort rather than the burning of life that flows within them which they, to some degree, have dampened.
As for the publishing of works after a man is dead... This will go on, no matter what anyone thinks of it. Is it fine to admire a man and his genius, and so admire his works that are bad or of mere craft level? Of course it is fine. Yet, we must evaluate ourselves in this instant and ask ourselves what is of real value. The artist doubtless should not be embarrassed by his previous works, but if he chose not to have them published in his life, it is rude to expose them after his death. Besides, why do we need to see lesser works when his genius sits before us? It is an insult to his genius to say, "We need more!" Should his offerings in life not be enough for us? Did he not say all that he intended to say in the works he chose to expose to us?
