Re: Use your loaf - well, I'll try.

Discussion in 'General Discussion archive 2000 (read-only)' started by marrissey, Dec 27, 2000.

  1. marrissey

    marrissey Guest

    > What do you propose? Success is unrewarding? My God! I've wasted
    > my life! (Don't worry, it's not the first time I have said
    > that.) Yes, you are right, I should strive to be a bag lady,
    > hang on, if I achieve that, haven't I achieved success in what
    > society deems failure? Oh, this is quickly becoming too
    > deconstructualist.

    Erm (again). I wrote "perhaps". I don't mind anyone being successful or not. Is it rewarding? Well, what is successful?
    I'll take some time to spell it out. Please scroll.
    Imagine this. You write lyrics for a song. The song becomes a hit. Success! There's the reputation you longed for. Interviews, talks, loads of stuff to do, to see, to read, loads of people to meet, people with their opinions about how, what, when and why. OK, that's the business.
    You want to do sth else, try a different approach. Oh no. It's no longer the same as the success story. People turn their backs. You've wasted the talent. No success. Not even square one now, but further aback. Hostility even.
    Then what?
    I really like to determine for myself whether I'm successful in attaining the goals I've set for me. Whether or not these goals by themselves (regardless of the way they were reached) can be considered a success or not by other people is second, or even third order. To me. I know, it's not a competitive attitude. So be it.

    Suppose you write a diary. And find it rather accurately reflects your year's personal developments, tourments, doubts, questions, tentative answers ... expressed in words that come rather close to the emotional background. The line separating both is thin. That was your target - trying to reduce the distance between life and expression of that life. You may consider that a successful achievement. And it may never be known, published or read.

    > Huh? I don't get it. You want to pinned down? Don't we all?

    Pinned down? Oh frankly, never ever. The past may be acknowledged. But I can't see it as a guideline. It's that what lies ahead, that makes the horizon. (A personal note, though)

    > Okay, the nit-picker in you got the better of me...how about
    > nothing good (I'm assuming to one learning Morrissey's home
    > address is good) comes easily...along with words, according to
    > Tracy Chapman.

    Well, can I remain provocative? Write a page on a piece of paper. It goes very well - it's how you wanted to put it, and what you wanted to put. Good. It came easily. And it's good.
    Then ... I start thinking. Huh, if that came so easily, couldn't it become any better? Couldn't I do even better? And there we go again ...
    I feel it's not about things good or bad coming easily or not. It's just ... when they are there - what do you want to do with them? If you're like me and think that everything that is worth of your attention should be reworked, made better and what not, .. well then we're at it, aren't we? "My only mistake is I'm hoping ...". Something along those lines.
    I fail to see what Tracy Chapman got to do with it. Never mind.

    > I'm too fond of my trousers.

    and what if he's fond of yours as well? I for one would be "dilemma'd".

    > however, don't despair, my dear, because, as you know, there's
    > is always a light that never goes out....

    Yep. I hope nothing is ever really finished. There's always room for improving.
     
  2. suzanne

    suzanne Guest

    > Erm (again). I wrote "perhaps". I don't mind anyone
    > being successful or not. Is it rewarding? Well, what is
    > successful?
    > I'll take some time to spell it out. Please scroll.
    > Imagine this. You write lyrics for a song. The song becomes a
    > hit. Success! There's the reputation you longed for. Interviews,
    > talks, loads of stuff to do, to see, to read, loads of people to
    > meet, people with their opinions about how, what, when and why.
    > OK, that's the business.
    > You want to do sth else, try a different approach. Oh no. It's
    > no longer the same as the success story. People turn their
    > backs. You've wasted the talent. No success. Not even square one
    > now, but further aback. Hostility even.
    > Then what?

    Yes, and who says one hasn't worked harder than the other?

    I wish the role of "hard work" in the grocery list of traits that makes a success story would slip on the list, and people would open their eyes to the truth. You can't get anywhere if you have a skill nobody wants. I don't care if you are the world's best basketweaver or the most immaculate housekeeper ever to walk this planet, and you spend hours nitpicking you craft. If you aren't in any position to be on the waitstaff at Buckingham palace, you're going to make minimum wage like everybody else.

    Nobody likes to admit that circumstances play a much bigger role. What if you are in an Earth shattering alternative band, but live in Nagadoches? It's time to start working on your website and mail orders because if it's not Garth Brooks, people don't care.

    > I really like to determine for myself whether I'm successful in
    > attaining the goals I've set for me. Whether or not these goals
    > by themselves (regardless of the way they were reached) can be
    > considered a success or not by other people is second, or even
    > third order. To me. I know, it's not a competitive attitude. So
    > be it.

    > Suppose you write a diary. And find it rather accurately
    > reflects your year's personal developments, tourments, doubts,
    > questions, tentative answers ... expressed in words that come
    > rather close to the emotional background. The line separating
    > both is thin. That was your target - trying to reduce the
    > distance between life and expression of that life. You may
    > consider that a successful achievement. And it may never be
    > known, published or read.

    True. Why should you be in a position to take abuse for the things you love to do? There is nothing worse than taking the hard work you do and gather up the nerve to present it and have people tell you that it was boring, weird, or watching as they struggle through coming up with something polite to say.

    There is no sense in disguising it. Sure, you can tell yourself that they were insulting the art and not you, but let's face it: the art is you. That is everything you have wanted to say, and the best way you could think of to say it. You can tell yourself they don't understand, and maybe they don't, but there was obviously nothing there that grabbed them on any other level. It didn't make them happy or stir any deep emotions to where they would take this as an anthem, or run home and tell their friends about it. If people have to think about if they liked it, it's not a good sign. Really good stuff should shut up that critic and make you do things you would normally find silly.

    In the end, it's not how good or bad you are, but how valuable you are in the status quo that determines your wealth. Although someone like Morrissey is seen as valuable to many people, there are bits of him that rankle the average person, and therefore, he will never be as popular as the Beatles who are seen as soft and cuddly and as the zenith of inoffensiveness. They don't actually have to be inoffensive. They merely have to be perceived as such.

    > Pinned down? Oh frankly, never ever. The past may be
    > acknowledged. But I can't see it as a guideline. It's that what
    > lies ahead, that makes the horizon. (A personal note, though)

    > Well, can I remain provocative? Write a page on a piece of
    > paper. It goes very well - it's how you wanted to put it, and
    > what you wanted to put. Good. It came easily. And it's good.
    > Then ... I start thinking. Huh, if that came so easily, couldn't
    > it become any better? Couldn't I do even better? And there we go
    > again ...
    > I feel it's not about things good or bad coming easily or not.
    > It's just ... when they are there - what do you want to do with
    > them? If you're like me and think that everything that is worth
    > of your attention should be reworked, made better and what not,
    > .. well then we're at it, aren't we? "My only mistake is
    > I'm hoping ...". Something along those lines.
    > I fail to see what Tracy Chapman got to do with it. Never mind.

    > and what if he's fond of yours as well? I for one would be
    > "dilemma'd".

    > Yep. I hope nothing is ever really finished. There's always room
    > for improving.
     
  3. > Erm (again). I wrote "perhaps". I don't mind anyone
    > being successful or not. Is it rewarding? Well, what is
    > successful?
    > I'll take some time to spell it out. Please scroll.
    > Imagine this. You write lyrics for a song. The song becomes a
    > hit. Success! There's the reputation you longed for. Interviews,
    > talks, loads of stuff to do, to see, to read, loads of people to
    > meet, people with their opinions about how, what, when and why.
    > OK, that's the business.
    > You want to do sth else, try a different approach. Oh no. It's
    > no longer the same as the success story. People turn their
    > backs. You've wasted the talent. No success. Not even square one
    > now, but further aback. Hostility even.
    > Then what?
    > I really like to determine for myself whether I'm successful in
    > attaining the goals I've set for me. Whether or not these goals
    > by themselves (regardless of the way they were reached) can be
    > considered a success or not by other people is second, or even
    > third order. To me. I know, it's not a competitive attitude. So
    > be it.

    > Suppose you write a diary. And find it rather accurately
    > reflects your year's personal developments, tourments, doubts,
    > questions, tentative answers ... expressed in words that come
    > rather close to the emotional background. The line separating
    > both is thin. That was your target - trying to reduce the
    > distance between life and expression of that life. You may
    > consider that a successful achievement. And it may never be
    > known, published or read.

    > Pinned down? Oh frankly, never ever. The past may be
    > acknowledged. But I can't see it as a guideline. It's that what
    > lies ahead, that makes the horizon. (A personal note, though)

    > Well, can I remain provocative? Write a page on a piece of
    > paper. It goes very well - it's how you wanted to put it, and
    > what you wanted to put. Good. It came easily. And it's good.
    > Then ... I start thinking. Huh, if that came so easily, couldn't
    > it become any better? Couldn't I do even better? And there we go
    > again ...
    > I feel it's not about things good or bad coming easily or not.
    > It's just ... when they are there - what do you want to do with
    > them? If you're like me and think that everything that is worth
    > of your attention should be reworked, made better and what not,
    > .. well then we're at it, aren't we? "My only mistake is
    > I'm hoping ...". Something along those lines.
    > I fail to see what Tracy Chapman got to do with it. Never mind.

    > and what if he's fond of yours as well? I for one would be
    > "dilemma'd".

    > Yep. I hope nothing is ever really finished. There's always room
    > for improving.

    Please stop this nonsense. Stop and smell the pretty foilage.

    OrangeS
     
  4. Somnium

    Somnium Guest

    > Yes, and who says one hasn't worked harder than the other?

    > I wish the role of "hard work" in the grocery list of
    > traits that makes a success story would slip on the list, and
    > people would open their eyes to the truth. You can't get
    > anywhere if you have a skill nobody wants. I don't care if you
    > are the world's best basketweaver or the most immaculate
    > housekeeper ever to walk this planet, and you spend hours
    > nitpicking you craft. If you aren't in any position to be on the
    > waitstaff at Buckingham palace, you're going to make minimum
    > wage like everybody else.

    > Nobody likes to admit that circumstances play a much bigger
    > role. What if you are in an Earth shattering alternative band,
    > but live in Nagadoches? It's time to start working on your
    > website and mail orders because if it's not Garth Brooks, people
    > don't care.

    I have made lots of exibitions, and I have spend a lot of money, but when the midia started to knock at my door, I realised that I didn't want that. They called me to say things, answer questions, and then I thought: I have nothing to say to those people. I want to be here, and I don't want they near me.

    It was 2 years that I don't show my paintings, and the only reason for my "stupid" website was getting closer with other artists, but in a different level. When you make a little succsess, the gallerists start to treat you like a retarded. They don't care if your work is good,,,,,,they just want your signature on it. I have dedicated all my life to my art, and now I just want them to forget me. I hate parties, I hate tvs, I hate interviews. Of course that I will not be a popular painter, cause I say NO to this all.

    > True. Why should you be in a position to take abuse for the
    > things you love to do? There is nothing worse than taking the
    > hard work you do and gather up the nerve to present it and have
    > people tell you that it was boring, weird, or watching as they
    > struggle through coming up with something polite to say.

    What do you expect from a critic or someone who can not see how genuine is your art???? I have heard the same things, but this will never be a reason to stop. THERE IS NO GOOD OR BAD ART......There is just ART.... It's your way to express yourself. YOU NEED to do this, cause you are an artist, and not because someone said: I LIKE.....NO, I DON'T LIKE. When you are a child, you often wait for someone to say: OH, BEAUTIFUL. ......But when you develop your style, and you don't care a @#!!! about what they say anymore.....Then you are going to discover something amazing inside of you. Something that NO ONE can take from you. ...One of the most wonderful painters of this century is named "Ibere Camargo". Yes, he was a brazilian. But he will never have the same succsess that Picasso, for exemple. On the other hand, his painting, his work, his art is HERE, for all of us. ...If you can not get some succsess with an underground obscure band, will you stop to write and create music??? WHY??? Your work will, sooner or later reach people. And you can record your songs, you can develop your own style, like anyother. This is art....That's the beauty.

    > There is no sense in disguising it. Sure, you can tell yourself
    > that they were insulting the art and not you, but let's face it:
    > the art is you. That is everything you have wanted to say, and
    > the best way you could think of to say it. You can tell yourself
    > they don't understand, and maybe they don't, but there was
    > obviously nothing there that grabbed them on any other level. It
    > didn't make them happy or stir any deep emotions to where they
    > would take this as an anthem, or run home and tell their friends
    > about it. If people have to think about if they liked it, it's
    > not a good sign. Really good stuff should shut up that critic
    > and make you do things you would normally find silly.

    When a critic say hard words about your art, THIS CAN BE A DAMAGE for you as a person. That's why I hate them... because ignorant people will read that and think: OH, THE CRITIC SAID THIS CD IS NO GOOD. SO I WILL NOT LISTEN TO. ...or: THIS CRITIC SAID THIS PAINTING IS TOO DARK, SO I WILL NOT BUY IT... On the other hand, they can not break your spirit if you have that magic power inside of you. They can reject you, AND YOU CAN KEEP GOING ON WITH YOUR WORK. Soon they will come back, and then IT'S YOUR TURN TO SAY: "GO AWAY"...

    > In the end, it's not how good or bad you are, but how valuable
    > you are in the status quo that determines your wealth. Although
    > someone like Morrissey is seen as valuable to many people, there
    > are bits of him that rankle the average person, and therefore,
    > he will never be as popular as the Beatles who are seen as soft
    > and cuddly and as the zenith of inoffensiveness. They don't
    > actually have to be inoffensive. They merely have to be
    > perceived as such.

    Some of the greatest musicians, writers, painters, were really hated, and sometimes you just need a single word to put them on the top. Caravaggio is considered as a genius just about 80 years ago. And why???? Because "critics"... or even better, influent critics have discovered him yesterday. If you would like to be popular, you would just need to say YES to the industry and sell your soul. Do you really need this? ...Now, more than before, I know that my paintings are really for me. ARTISTS CREATE FOR THEMSELVES, and then, they share their art to the audience,...but If they hate or not..... this is another subject.
     
  5. suzanne

    suzanne Guest

    > I have made lots of exibitions, and I have spend a lot of money,
    > but when the midia started to knock at my door, I realised that
    > I didn't want that. They called me to say things, answer
    > questions, and then I thought: I have nothing to say to those
    > people. I want to be here, and I don't want they near me.

    > It was 2 years that I don't show my paintings, and the only
    > reason for my "stupid" website was getting closer with
    > other artists, but in a different level. When you make a little
    > succsess, the gallerists start to treat you like a retarded.
    > They don't care if your work is good,,,,,,they just want your
    > signature on it. I have dedicated all my life to my art, and now
    > I just want them to forget me. I hate parties, I hate tvs, I
    > hate interviews. Of course that I will not be a popular painter,
    > cause I say NO to this all.

    > What do you expect from a critic or someone who can not see how
    > genuine is your art????

    You're not supposed to see it, you're supposed to know it.

    >I have heard the same things, but this
    > will never be a reason to stop. THERE IS NO GOOD OR BAD
    > ART......There is just ART.... It's your way to express
    > yourself. YOU NEED to do this, cause you are an artist, and not
    > because someone said: I LIKE.....NO, I DON'T LIKE. When you are
    > a child, you often wait for someone to say: OH, BEAUTIFUL.
    > ......But when you develop your style, and you don't care a
    > @#!!! about what they say anymore.....Then you are going to
    > discover something amazing inside of you. Something that NO ONE
    > can take from you. ...One of the most wonderful painters of this
    > century is named "Ibere Camargo". Yes, he was a
    > brazilian. But he will never have the same succsess that
    > Picasso, for exemple. On the other hand, his painting, his work,
    > his art is HERE, for all of us. ...If you can not get some
    > succsess with an underground obscure band, will you stop to
    > write and create music??? WHY??? Your work will, sooner or later
    > reach people. And you can record your songs, you can develop
    > your own style, like anyother. This is art....That's the beauty.

    Somnium, the only thing that can stop you from making music is when you realize that it's just not you. I don't care how much I know or what I do, the very fact remains that deep down, I just don't feel very comfortable in that realm.

    As I was saying, a person like Morrissey is a person who "knows" it. He doesn't think about it because whatever idea he wants to get across is what he fully believes in.

    On my end of the stick, there will always be something missing.

    and the main reason i gave up performing is because all I cared about is what people thought. i would rather have their approval than mine. i would push myself to write a song for the wrong reasons. now, sitting around and staring at a blank piece of paper makes me too nervous because i feel the wasting of time, and imagining that I could be doing something much better with my time...even visiting this website seems a better use of my time. it's like i have to be locked at my desk at work and being confronted by the dreariness of not being able to take off when i want that I do anything now...and even now, i'd still rather play Free Cell.

    i can't fathom anything that i do artistically as being more than a blip on the radar, so i sort of regard it as time for myself....and as fun as those tiny diversions are, i can't really improve myself, can I?

    and although the idea of me being a journalist sounds intriguing, i would be horrible at that as well. I wouldn't even have the nerve to call anyone up for a quote much less write an entire involved piece where you are tracking down the hard-to-get.

    > When a critic say hard words about your art, THIS CAN BE A
    > DAMAGE for you as a person. That's why I hate them... because
    > ignorant people will read that and think: OH, THE CRITIC SAID
    > THIS CD IS NO GOOD. SO I WILL NOT LISTEN TO. ...or: THIS CRITIC
    > SAID THIS PAINTING IS TOO DARK, SO I WILL NOT BUY IT... On the
    > other hand, they can not break your spirit if you have that
    > magic power inside of you. They can reject you, AND YOU CAN KEEP
    > GOING ON WITH YOUR WORK. Soon they will come back, and then IT'S
    > YOUR TURN TO SAY: "GO AWAY"...

    I don't know what to think about them. It's like they are paid money to sport an attitude.

    > Some of the greatest musicians, writers, painters, were really
    > hated, and sometimes you just need a single word to put them on
    > the top. Caravaggio is considered as a genius just about 80
    > years ago. And why???? Because "critics"... or even
    > better, influent critics have discovered him yesterday. If you
    > would like to be popular, you would just need to say YES to the
    > industry and sell your soul. Do you really need this? ...

    Considering the state of my life now....yes.

    If I had some massively saleable talent, hell yes. Why do I need to fritter my life away working for the witless and unintelligent people that I do and taking their abuse and not appreciating anything I've done for them, then turning around and going home to my non-existance hoping maybe somebody called, when i can feel good about myself leaving those jerks, and jet setting around the world in the first class section on the way to Sydney or Florence?

    It's not money, but it's what money can buy.

    I've thought about it. I have no scruples, and I would gladly be a sell-out. I'll keep my "real" art in a box somewhere. I can write both.

    >Now,
    > more than before, I know that my paintings are really for me.
    > ARTISTS CREATE FOR THEMSELVES, and then, they share their art to
    > the audience,...but If they hate or not..... this is another
    > subject.
     
  6. marrissey

    marrissey Guest

    > Yes, and who says one hasn't worked harder than the other?

    en effet.

    > I wish the role of "hard work" in the grocery list of
    > traits that makes a success story would slip on the list, and
    > people would open their eyes to the truth. You can't get
    > anywhere if you have a skill nobody wants. I don't care if you
    > are the world's best basketweaver or the most immaculate
    > housekeeper ever to walk this planet, and you spend hours
    > nitpicking you craft. If you aren't in any position to be on the
    > waitstaff at Buckingham palace, you're going to make minimum
    > wage like everybody else.

    that's right. but do you find it problematic? If I were a basketweaver, and good at it, the only thing I would dearly want, is to continue doing it, and dreaming of improvement. But not of becoming a clerk in the local bank, gather money, transfer to a big city, sell whatever I can, and add myself to the queues of the waiting.

    > Nobody likes to admit that circumstances play a much bigger
    > role. What if you are in an Earth shattering alternative band,
    > but live in Nagadoches? It's time to start working on your
    > website and mail orders because if it's not Garth Brooks, people
    > don't care.

    They indeed play a role in becoming known to the big public. But not in making art. Cavafis never published anything really, but sent it out to friends. Van Gogh was known to five or six critics (only one of which admired him) when he was still alive. Kafka really had a hard time finding a publisher, and most writings was published posthumely. We could go on.

    > There is no sense in disguising it. Sure, you can tell yourself
    > that they were insulting the art and not you, but let's face it:
    > the art is you. That is everything you have wanted to say, and
    > the best way you could think of to say it. You can tell yourself
    > they don't understand, and maybe they don't, but there was
    > obviously nothing there that grabbed them on any other level. It
    > didn't make them happy or stir any deep emotions to where they
    > would take this as an anthem, or run home and tell their friends
    > about it. If people have to think about if they liked it, it's
    > not a good sign. Really good stuff should shut up that critic
    > and make you do things you would normally find silly.

    True. But in some cases, certainly not mine, the "most people" thing is "BS" - groundbreaking work needs time to be recognized. "Most people" had no respect for the Impressionists. Found it terrible. And then look at Degas - they guy has now much more respect than 50 years ago.
    And the art indeed becomes you. So in the end, you continue because of the expression of your self. You need to, like a inner compulsion.
    But at that stage, it becomes very difficult to live with the mob criticism, even harder with the peer criticism.

    > In the end, it's not how good or bad you are, but how valuable
    > you are in the status quo that determines your wealth. Although
    > someone like Morrissey is seen as valuable to many people, there
    > are bits of him that rankle the average person, and therefore,
    > he will never be as popular as the Beatles who are seen as soft
    > and cuddly and as the zenith of inoffensiveness. They don't
    > actually have to be inoffensive. They merely have to be
    > perceived as such.

    And the irony of it all!
     
  7. marrissey

    marrissey Guest

    > Please stop this nonsense. Stop and smell the pretty foilage.

    I'll quote you. as a reply.
     
  8. suzanne

    suzanne Guest

    > en effet.

    > that's right. but do you find it problematic? If I were a
    > basketweaver, and good at it, the only thing I would dearly
    > want, is to continue doing it, and dreaming of improvement. But
    > not of becoming a clerk in the local bank, gather money,
    > transfer to a big city, sell whatever I can, and add myself to
    > the queues of the waiting.

    And that's what most people would really want out of life.

    > They indeed play a role in becoming known to the big public. But
    > not in making art. Cavafis never published anything really, but
    > sent it out to friends. Van Gogh was known to five or six
    > critics (only one of which admired him) when he was still alive.
    > Kafka really had a hard time finding a publisher, and most
    > writings was published posthumely. We could go on.

    > True. But in some cases, certainly not mine, the "most
    > people" thing is "BS" - groundbreaking work needs
    > time to be recognized. "Most people" had no respect
    > for the Impressionists. Found it terrible. And then look at
    > Degas - they guy has now much more respect than 50 years ago.
    > And the art indeed becomes you. So in the end, you continue
    > because of the expression of your self. You need to, like a
    > inner compulsion.
    > But at that stage, it becomes very difficult to live with the
    > mob criticism, even harder with the peer criticism.

    But mob rule is such an arbitrary thing. I'm not saying that the more people who like it, the better it is. You can't really point to the critics. If you read most newspaper reviews of say the Matrix, they will say that it was merely OK, but if you ask the average person on the street, they will tell you what a great movie it is. So, when historians look back on this movie years from now, they will read the newspapers and cite how the movie never really went completely over with the audience.

    Criticism is nothing but a class distinction. For example, I know I'm going out on a limb by saying this, but I think the show Married With Children was a really good show. I absolutely loved the episode where Al is too broke to go on vacation and he instead puts a kiddie fence around the couch and stays there an entire week. However, because of who that show appealed to, it will be relegated to the dustbins. Instead, we get the praise of shows like Friends, Frasier, and Seinfeld. All shows which are aimed at white, late 20's+ professionals.

    In Living Color was excellent. Damon Wayans was just as good as Jim Carrey in many respects, but you don't hear much from him these days.

    > And the irony of it all!
     
Loading...

Share This Page