When I say impulse I should admit that I am guided also by a desire to do 
something new, something different, something that subverts my habits.  We are 
indeed creatures of habit and it is good most of the time but is deadly in art. 
 We need to keep putting our work at risk, be willing to taunt falure.  Failure 
is the absence of impulse...a failure to feel the inevitability next mark or 
touch.  One is then "stuck" and experiences a lack of regard for the work.  It 
refuses our projection of life into it. It is dead. That is the time for 
radical change -- ruthless impatient, and callous change. It may not work.  It 
might.  It may restore the impulse and the delusion that life, one's selfness, 
can be projected or objectified.  Many years ago I would give up on paintings 
when I became stuck.  I had no inkling of what to do and didn't like what I had 
done.  It was all wrong.  It wasn't my surrogate after all. But it had to be 
done.  Now I can keep at a work,
 subverting it over and over, seeking its hidden newness, its never before 
never again reality.  New evidence!  Style is nothing but the inevitability of 
impulse...one impulse follows another...or not. So I've not given up on a work 
for a very long time, which is not to say I think each works succeeds to my 
best surprise.  I'm happy if there is but one new something, one trace of 
freshness, one stand-alone quality.  The rest, and really all definitive 
qualitative judgment will be by others, is fate. So every painting is different 
and every one the same.  All have survived subversion and impulse. 

Luckily, I didn't pay much attention in artschool when rules and methods were 
taught.  I also flunked the "art aptitude" psychological test (3rd percentile, 
meaning 97% scored above me) because I said all the choices were bad and 
therefore irrelevant.  My 3% was just chance. I indulged my failing the rules.  
Typical smark alec kid artist. 
WC


--- On Fri, 12/19/08, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

> From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Neurology and "Art"
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Friday, December 19, 2008, 1:44 PM
> In a message dated 12/19/08 1:39:13 PM,
> [email protected] writes:
> 
> 
> > I don't investigate aesthetics in doing my art. I
> act on impulse and 
> > delusional confidence. I am so given up to trusting
> the impulse that I attribute it 
> > to God. I just follow orders. Seriously. When I
> interfere with the impulse, 
> > when I think about rightness or wrongness or rules or
> aesthetic judgment, I 
> > screw things up, I lose the naturalness of form.
> > 
> The differences in the creation and appreciation of
> different genres 
> intrigues me. There's a related question: When, if
> ever, can we say that a would-be 
> WOA is "wrong"? I don't mean the likes of
> morally or politically wrong. Oh? So 
> what do I mean -- i.e. what do I have in mind?
> 
>    Michael suggests he sometimes quits on a painting, or
> paints over it. My 
> guess is he's acting on the realization that its wanted
> effect on HIM as 
> contemplator is not there. Or, if not a "wanted"
> effect in the sense of 
> "anticipated", then there's simply no effect
> there that "pleases" him in a way I'll 
> momentarily call "aesthetic". 
> 
> When that happens, can you, Michael, (or William, if that
> ever happens to you 
> -- or any other "creator" listening in) put your
> finger on the fault in a 
> conscious, "cerebral" way? More than that, can
> you ever identify it as a "rule 
> book" flaw?
> 
> It seems to me that narrative writers often CAN do that. At
> any point in 
> their "story" it can come to them that something
> is "wrong". In this regard they 
> are not unlike their audience (reader or viewer). I once
> wrote  a book 
> originally intended for editors. Sensibility, I said, may
> tell you THAT something is 
> wrong, but it won't necessarily tell you WHAT is wrong.
> It's not the common 
> reader's job to identify the flaw, but it is the
> editor's job. Here, I wrote, is 
> a checklist of ailments to look for. It turned out the book
> was bought by far 
> more writers than editors. 
> 
> My question is: Do you visual artists have anything like
> that guiding you? 
> Something you can point at and say, "That's
> wrong." I don't mean the likes of 
> realizing a would-be portrait isn't succeeding because
> the nose is too long. 
> Tell me what I should mean.   
> 
> 
> 
> **************
> One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
> Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
> (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&amp;
> icid=aolcom40vanity&amp;ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)

Reply via email to