I don't think it is of any use at all to explain how one creates. Any descriptive explanation is just going around the issue. Creating is tomfoolery with the ineffable. It's about tinkering and assembling the self, again and again as if in continually changing guise. It originates in old and new fragments of experience and inarticulate, incoherent feelings submitted to the ordering consciousness, like random pottery shards to be reassembled. All one can do is attempt to order this chaos as proof of having a oneself.
If the artist does something he or she thinks is good it's a plea for recognition of whole selfness. Then one is enabled to go to pieces and start the frantic, desperate and hopeful quest for wholeness again ad infinitum. Thus I think art commemorates in a social medium what everyone is compelled to do moment to moment in consciousness if they choose authenticity of selfness. If authenticity is not desired, the commonplace readymades will do just fine (like "Joe The Plumber" or some other defined identity in the flow of mass culture). WC --- On Thu, 10/23/08, Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Envisioning > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 11:30 PM > On Oct 23, 2008, at 11:56 PM, GEOFF CREALOCK wrote: > > > Michael: I have been struck with the frequency with > which writers > > (of novels) refer to their writings coming from their > > > "subconscious". Characters take over the > story in ways the novelist > > hadn't planned. Some novelists are suprised at how > their stories > > turn out. Which leads me to believe that relaxing and > finding if > > there is something in you that wants to be expressed, > in words/paint/ > > whatever. I do believe that there is room for judgment > about the > > academic side (good punctuation, appropriate grammar) > being applied > > to the telling of the story. How that might translate > to painting > > I'll avoid. > > My experience is this: > > The painting "takes over" only because as I > paint, I make decisions, > which then foreclose some options and open others. The > "direction" of > the painting comes from choices I make. It doesn't come > from my > subconscious--but sometimes it comes from the part of my > waking mind > that I'm not attending to at the moment. My conscious > mind works in > very associative ways; focusing concentrates the > associations in a way > that leads to decision, limit, and closure, which are a > good thing > when openness is merely indecision or the postponing of > choice. And > relaxing, which you mention, sometimes allows my mind's > reconnaissance > patrols to stumble across a remote connection or small node > and bring > it back into my main focus. > > With painting, I long ago learned the lesson that planning > and > predicting and plotting out things according to rules and > canons, as > useful as that could be, never matched what appeared on the > canvas. As > soldiers say, the best plans fall apart the moment the > fighting starts. > > I rarely think of anything I do as coming from a need to > "be > expressed." I paint and draw because I really like to > do that, it > pleases me, it engages a lot of interests I have and it > satisfies me. > I have never felt the need to tell anything in a > painting--and I have > rarely painted a "message" painting (I can think > of only two in the > last twenty years, and another two that I > "retrofitted' a message > onto). But I have always felt the desire to show things, > namely, what > I painted. "Here, look at this." Basically. More > like, "Here, look at > this. I really like it and I hope you do, too." > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
