Mar 12, 2023·edited Mar 12, 2023Liked by Mark Bisone
I've seen it described as the astral realm, the great arcanum, the creative stream of energy flowing from the creator, we tap into with our imagination. Some imaginations are more adept than others. Some are just plain ugly, Some are downright evil. All of it is there to sample from.
The greatest artists then use intention and will to create art out of the ineffable, to manifest creation. Life then is an artwork, and if treated as such, the likelihood your art will have an impact is greater. Recognizing the universe as divine then, should make for better art, longer lasting.
So yeah, policing the speech of others is by def evil.
"Life then is an artwork, and if treated as such, the likelihood your art will have an impact is greater."
Absolutely. And as I said to another friend recently in a different context, the painting/sculpture/story of each life will have a final page or stroke, and the completed artwork will be what we will be forever on the other side of the veil.
I just went to a men-only memorial for my friend Snake. Some of the art that was his life was the 40 men there, talking about how much he changed them and for the better.
Speaking of a divine universe, the guy who came to pick up the body, who had no idea who he was picking up, had three inch long coiled snake earrings in each ear.
So many great insights here. I might add that a certain amount of stamina, both in practice and in research/thinking, is also conducive to summoning a good wingman. Steven Pressfield had hammered that point home too in his "War of Art". But the most important as you said are pure intentions, and seeing these sorts of things as gifts: we are never entitled to them and can never force them or even expect them. But if they come, we are not supposed to stand in the way, and must sustain the flow.
Yes to stamina (or fortitude), and other virtues. I haven't read Pressfield, but I imagine that he cautions against the frivolous/directionless expense of too much energy. When we are drained, we become easy prey (and in my estimation not merely for human predators).
Yes to gifts as well. It's taken me a long time to really comprehend what it means to admit you have a gift, because so much of our language has become oriented towards prideful boasting about immutable qualities, and other things that weren't earned. It is illogical to express pride about a gift you were given. And if it's a gift from God, then it becomes something even worse to ignore or abuse it, because gifts of that kind are also responsibilities.
Mark, this reminds me of J.S. Bach writing SDG (Soli Deo Gloria) at the top of nearly every important composition he wrote. I love this essay, and I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Mar 12, 2023·edited Mar 12, 2023Liked by Mark Bisone
What a wonderful essay, Mark - and a much-needed topic that goes ignored or rarely considered. There's so much to unpack here, but I'll try. As a fellow artist (graphic designer but also a writer and musician,) my life has been forged by the creative impulse. There's an ineffable source from which great art springs from. I realize both 'great' and 'art' are highly subjective and personal, but for the sake of this comment and in alignment with your essay, let's agree that divinely inspired art defines greatness.
It's that unknowable mystery, the divine spark that not only ignites creativity but guides it. You can tell immediately whether an artwork has it or not. 99.9% of modern art does not. That's a sweeping dictum, but there you have it. Which is why we return to the masters, like de Messina and her divine rendition with that presence out of frame, but more than that, the subtext of her painting, the gift, the presence not only of Gabriel but of God.
AI artwork is utterly devoid of it. It's just sourcing an aggregate of massive data in a particular style algorithm and excreting a pictorial form that mirrors the madness of the human mind that created it. And symbolically, our collective madness, the madness we witnessed over the past three years that's getting louder.
I would rebrand AI as Automated Information, not Artificial Intelligence as it has none.
Divine essence, that sense of the sublime, can be found in any art form. One of the most profound examples in the medium of film is Baraka, a non-verbal 70mm cinematic masterpiece of visuals and music. Recommended, if you haven't seen it.
The divine, in whatever shape or form, cannot be measured, quantified, comprehended, bought or sold - but it can be felt and experienced. This confounds the bureaucrats, the mechanistic transhumanists, scientists, and whoever else you want to add. The fact of a human being open to the divine is also motivated by it in his or her actions is threatening to anyone stuck in measurement or control, such as government and all the soulless distortions we see playing out today.
A divinely connected and motivated humanity, creating, building, living and loving together, is our way forward.
"It's that unknowable mystery, the divine spark that not only ignites creativity but guides it. You can tell immediately whether an artwork has it or not. 99.9% of modern art does not. That's a sweeping dictum, but there you have it."
Yes. We are attuned to what it is and isn't, which is why it's destruction over the past century or so always fascinated me. Weirdly, I think some of it started as jokes (Marcel Duchamp, for example) that spiraled out of control. By the time you got to Pollack or Warhol, the joke had also become yet another financial scam. I plan on writing about the art market at length at some point, but the short version is that art became yet another method of washing dirty money at some point, while also degenerating the society around the crimes to the point that most people wouldn't notice or care.
"The divine, in whatever shape or form, cannot be measured, quantified, comprehended, bought or sold - but it can be felt and experienced. This confounds the bureaucrats, the mechanistic transhumanists, scientists, and whoever else you want to add."
100%. It is the Quality that defies quantification, and therefore defies capture. There is a very good reason why communists and other kinds of totalitarians constantly fear, ridicule and attack it. They know it is fundamentally immune to their predations, because those who have experienced even some small measure of it cannot be manipulated or controlled. They are the kind of loose cannons on whom the usual carrot-and-stick measures don't work as intended, and may produce the opposite of the intended result.
Mar 13, 2023·edited Mar 13, 2023Liked by Mark Bisone
Thanks, Mark. I hadn't thought of the money laundering aspect but yes, it's an easy scam for say, mafiosi, drugsters, politicians or anyone with ill-gotten gains to wash their loot into respectability.
That the divine defies capture is the thing as you so clearly put that freaks out the capital-driven progressive atheists. Yet they have their own religion in Scientism with its rituals, catechism, priesthood and hierarchy. Not that they would see it in this way, but from the outside it's so obvious. Considering the darker aspects such as child sacrifice and taking children away from their parents, it would be more like a cult.
Usually, a cult is the minority. This cult is the majority, which is the weirdness of it for those of us non-members. It's like living inside Jonestown. But I feel that's changing as people start to wake up and the truth starts coming out more and more. The fake narratives just can't hold up anymore.
As you say of the divine, those who have experienced even some small measure of it cannot be manipulated or controlled. Amen.
Three cheers for this, Mark. Insightful and timely. I was recently meditating on the concept of Jesus as friend. To my Catholic sensibility it sounds cringe. "Jesus is my best buddy!" My instinct is to flee in the direction of the nearest Traditional Latin Mass. However, Jesus Himself said that he calls us friends (John 15:15). So how should I interpret this? I started thinking about what I value in my relationships with friends. It is working on something together. When you have a good friend, you have a joint project with them and collaborate on it, or else discuss the separate but similar projects that you both have ongoing. Right? Boom. I need to collaborate with Jesus on my projects, and work on them together with Him. That's how my friendship with Him can develop. I'm just a pulp sci-fi writer, but I don't think He scorns pulp sci-fi--after all He spent much of His earthly life building good and useful things for ordinary Nazareans! And though I say it, sci-fi can be good and useful too.
"It is working on something together. When you have a good friend, you have a joint project with them and collaborate on it, or else discuss the separate but similar projects that you both have ongoing. Right?"
Right. Although the mechanism of communication differs, I think this isn't a bad way to look at it. Regardless of the motivations involved, a shared enterprise with friends will at the very least clamber over the huge hurdle of trust. We can game out a lot of risk/reward with non-friends and even strangers, but situations will always arise when trust is the only option for moving in a particular direction.
"I'm just a pulp sci-fi writer, but I don't think He scorns pulp sci-fi--after all He spent much of His earthly life building good and useful things for ordinary Nazareans! And though I say it, sci-fi can be good and useful too."
I agree with this. So did C.S. Lewis, FWIW. And for all his flaws, Orwell produced some of the most good and useful fiction ever, and I can't help but think that inspiration was the key. Without it, he becomes a mere H.G. Wells, to be tricked by any totalitarian who rolls past.
Another insightful essay. Thank you. Like every other aspect of life, there was a foulness unleashed into art, with the intent to degrade and besmirch what was given to elevate and uplift. It surely must debase the souls of so-called artists who create monstrosities like that 3 portraits piece you shared. Nightmare fuel!
Also another black mark against AI art. It has no soul, so it is soulless and therefore no matter how technically perfect it is, it isn’t art.
Thank you Nana. Yes, "foulness" is a very apt word for it. There is a stench about certain art and artists, just as there are certain sciences and scientists, certain politics and politicians, etc. The sense that something is rotting in our midst.
I love your thought and work. This especially rings true to me, “In fact this model of mind creates more holes than it repairs, which evil people will then fill with their perverse ideologies and toxic drugs.” That is spot on! Ironically, paradoxically and as-of-yet unresolved, I become more and more convinced that these screens that we use to communicate these ideas are the fundamental altars of an alchemical spiritual process that we do not understand. Whether you are a reductionist-atheist of a believer in the Divine source of creation (as I am) it seems more and more self-evident that the cost benefit analysis to the formation of thought, perception, metaphor or just time spent on these screens is most assuredly negative. I don’t know how to resolve this conundrum as I am an addict of the “toxic drug” of the screen just like all of us here. Being a Luddite, or at least Amish seems more and more like the logical reaction to the chaos of the modern age. I’m not sure it is in my perceptual power to balance out the misdirection of thought that is inherent in this epistemic technological revolution.
"Whether you are a reductionist-atheist of a believer in the Divine source of creation (as I am) it seems more and more self-evident that the cost benefit analysis to the formation of thought, perception, metaphor or just time spent on these screens is most assuredly negative."
Yeah, and this is critical to understand. I have many atheist friends, including here on Substack and on Deimos, who I hold in great regard. What bonds us more than anything else I think is the idea that we, our parents (and in many cases, grandparents) and children were all raised in the epoch of The Screen. That's not to say that other illusions weren't employed before its invention, but the capacity for diabolical (or, in their language, psychopathic) abuse of secondary sources of of manipulated sensory input is something I think we all agree on.
And just to explore this bond further, I strive always to not confuse religiosity with morality or virtue. Hunter Duncan, for example, is a pagan. Does that mean he is necessarily my enemy? To declare him one would be illogical as a Christian. So would declaring someone like Grant Smith an enemy, who is an atheist but not an anti-theist (the difference between the two is stark). Thinking another man is mistaken in his metaphysics is the most common thing in the world, because the truth of existence is the most complex puzzle that confronts us all. Our common enemies are quite frankly a lot more obvious to perceive and define, as metaphysical debate is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the stuff they want to shut us up about.
You do know that Caravaggio was a raving homosexual and murderer. How do you explain him producing beautiful paintings; that told stories, etc? While I commend your desire for sane art I think you and Megha are confusing inspiration with an artist's ability to do things they aren't really tied to emotionally. Mainly, because they need money and like being famous like everyone else.
Aaron Copeland made the most authentic "American" music of the 20th century. He scored Martha Graham ballets like Appalachian Spring; Billy the Kid, ballet; The Tender Land, opera; The Red Pony, suite for orchestra; you get the picture. He was of Russian-Jewish immigrant parents, homosexual, and I doubt traveled west of the Hudson River.
“During these years I began to feel an increasing dissatisfaction with the relations of the music-loving public and the living composer. It seemed to me that we composers were in danger of working in a vacuum.”
Artists cannot work in a vacuum. They need money (patrons) and some kind of recognition. You two need to back off with the romantic crescendos about artists already. Watch Art School Confidential, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364955/. It's a bit simple-minded but is far closer to reality than your blustering schtick on the sainted artist with the wind-swept hair. Give me a break. LOL.
Your problem Mark was that the god you fed was a demon. That's the way it works sometimes. You let a demon into your soul. I hate to say it but sometimes the worst part of a person may be the most interesting. I can tell you that simply by exorcizing demons isn't going to make a person a good artist. You may become a better person, certainly, but not a better artist.
Thanks for your detailed comment. I welcome all feedback, including that which disagrees. That said, you've made several errors and assembled some strawmen here that need to be addressed. To be fair, you also nailed something quite accurately, though I think your diagnosis is incomplete.
“You do know that Caravaggio was a raving homosexual and murderer. How do you explain him producing beautiful paintings; that told stories, etc? While I commend your desire for sane art I think you and Megha are confusing inspiration with an artist's ability to do things they aren't really tied to emotionally. Mainly, because they need money and like being famous like everyone else.”
Megha wrote nothing of artistic inspiration in the piece I referenced (though perhaps she has in the past; I don't know). In fact, the entire point of my article was that I thought it was a requisite ingredient that she missed. Neither of us wrote anything about Caravaggio either, or about the many incentives and desires that drive artists to do their work (or frankly, for anyone to do work of any kind). We are writing about the work itself. The process. In my case, it's the process by which an artist collaboratively reveals an angle of the truth, which I do not think can be accomplished by the ego/intellect and imagination alone.
“Aaron Copeland made the most authentic "American" music of the 20th century. He scored Martha Graham ballets like Appalachian Spring; Billy the Kid, ballet; The Tender Land, opera; The Red Pony, suite for orchestra; you get the picture. He was of Russian-Jewish immigrant parents, homosexual, and I doubt traveled west of the Hudson River.
See above.
“Artists cannot work in a vacuum. They need money (patrons) and some kind of recognition. You two need to back off with the romantic crescendos about artists already. Watch Art School Confidential, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364955/. It's a bit simple-minded but is far closer to reality than your blustering schtick on the sainted artist with the wind-swept hair. Give me a break. LOL."
Again, these all seem like strawmen. I never wrote (nor do I think) that artists are “saintly”, let alone that they have “wind-swept hair” (lol, wtf?). To reiterate, what I wrote about was process. I don't think you can cite an example of me implying anything about the moral character of a given artist, or of artists as a “group” (which is an illogical way to look at us, in my opinion).”
The fact that you didn't/cannot leads me to believe this is projection on your part, though I can't guess what it is you might be projecting. If it was meant as a rhetorical flourish, it fails because it isn't rooted in anything real.
“Your problem Mark was that the god you fed was a demon. That's the way it works sometimes. You let a demon into your soul. I hate to say it but sometimes the worst part of a person may be the most interesting. I can tell you that simply by exorcizing demons isn't going to make a person a good artist. You may become a better person, certainly, but not a better artist.”
As far as “let(ting) a demon into my soul,” nobody knows this better than I do. In fact, I've been writing extensively about just that, and I invite your commentary on those articles as well. One of the things that such experiences teach you is to maintain a kind of inner quiet at the core of your being (especially when your work is being mischaracterized, which you seem to be doing here for some unknown reason).
You mentioned Caravaggio (who you seem to favor, while I do not) and his low moral character, which you perhaps think made him “more interesting.” You also seem to equate the financial/social success of an artist with the quality of his artworks, as though he were simply an engineer whose work is judged by how many bridges do or don't fall down. Obviously I disagree, which is why I included a link to the Sotheby's auction of Bacon's horrendously shitty work.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that people who “like” bad art are bad people, but there is certainly a kind of desperate preening and flailing when they discuss it, and critics who will disappear up their own assholes defending tawdry propaganda and Dadaist trash. They've been tricked by their own perverse incentive structures, in my opinion, because they are status-addicts who fear falling out of step with fashion.
While I decided not to include it in this piece, here is a quote from an article on History Collection entitled “The 10 Most Unflattering Portraits Ever Made and the Stories Behind Them”, regarding the execrable work of Lucian Freud.
“It’s worth stressing here that just because it’s unflattering doesn’t necessarily make it a terrible portrait. I personally rate Lucian Freud—partly because I genuinely like his work and partly because everybody else in this country ranks him among Britain’s finest figurative painters.”
LMAO. The author is at least being “partly” honest here (which is partly admirable, heh heh).
Suffice it to say, it's entirely plausible for a person who is typically in the grip of moral lunacy to become a vessel for good art during its process, and for a “saint” to make flat, dead, soulless art. I do plan to do a piece on evil artwork and its process, but again won't comment on the various incentive structures or moral character of its agents. While that's not exactly orthogonal, the art-making process will once more be the subject at hand. I'll also be exploring the aspect of the modern art market as a financial scam, which has particularly been the case for the past seventy years or so.
I invite you to join that conversation too. And of course, if you think I've made an error here let me know.
Thanks for your response. I actually want you (and Megha) to write about art; and look forward to your future articles on this subject. But . . .
"We are writing about the work itself. The process."
That to me is a contradiction. The work isn't a process. It's done already. The process is the technical stuff; stretching a canvas, preparing a surface, sanding, underpainting, glazing, transfer pouncing with charcoal (in the past) while today opaque projector using photos as reference, mechanical reproduction like Richard Prince (who's gotten into trouble copying professional photographer's work); computer-generated stuff is the latest. There's a guy I just read about who uses algorithms to make a series of rectangles in water color (mostly). That's the process.
Inspiration isn't a process, although technique can inspire images. The ancient Greeks invented oil painting and were then able to produce illusions that could fool birds into thinking grapes were real, according to Pliny, describing a painting by Zeuxis, N.H. 35.61-6. He also says Zeuxis painted morality itself in the image of Penelope wife of Odysseus, "of many wiles."
Anyway, I'm interested in what you have to write on this. Thank you.
This has mainly to do with creating images, but it could be extended to other mediums. I think they instantiate differently in those, but the inspiration, intellect and imagination components are still required.
Got it. I was going to take issue with the "storytelling" idea, but if we're talking primarily about images (a topic I know virtually nothing about) I'll save that for another time. :-)
I recently heard Duke Ellington's "Satin Doll" after not hearing jazz for a long time. I instantly recognized a Rightness to it that, at the very least, aligned with the Divine.
I looked into it, and sure enough; he hosted daily bible studies for bandmates and other folks that he worked with.
To be Holy is to be set apart. I think this can be heard, musically. I also think the people respond to it really well. I personally believe that a big part of classical music's sticking power stems directly from J.S. Bach writing Soli Deo Gloria. Similarly, Mozart memorized at least one mass of Palestrina (because the pope did not want the music to get out). I can't point to its influence in Mozart's music, but it may have influenced his genius.
I've seen it described as the astral realm, the great arcanum, the creative stream of energy flowing from the creator, we tap into with our imagination. Some imaginations are more adept than others. Some are just plain ugly, Some are downright evil. All of it is there to sample from.
The greatest artists then use intention and will to create art out of the ineffable, to manifest creation. Life then is an artwork, and if treated as such, the likelihood your art will have an impact is greater. Recognizing the universe as divine then, should make for better art, longer lasting.
So yeah, policing the speech of others is by def evil.
"Life then is an artwork, and if treated as such, the likelihood your art will have an impact is greater."
Absolutely. And as I said to another friend recently in a different context, the painting/sculpture/story of each life will have a final page or stroke, and the completed artwork will be what we will be forever on the other side of the veil.
I just went to a men-only memorial for my friend Snake. Some of the art that was his life was the 40 men there, talking about how much he changed them and for the better.
Speaking of a divine universe, the guy who came to pick up the body, who had no idea who he was picking up, had three inch long coiled snake earrings in each ear.
BTW there was a lot of interest in tonic masculinity in that room.
So many great insights here. I might add that a certain amount of stamina, both in practice and in research/thinking, is also conducive to summoning a good wingman. Steven Pressfield had hammered that point home too in his "War of Art". But the most important as you said are pure intentions, and seeing these sorts of things as gifts: we are never entitled to them and can never force them or even expect them. But if they come, we are not supposed to stand in the way, and must sustain the flow.
Yes to stamina (or fortitude), and other virtues. I haven't read Pressfield, but I imagine that he cautions against the frivolous/directionless expense of too much energy. When we are drained, we become easy prey (and in my estimation not merely for human predators).
Yes to gifts as well. It's taken me a long time to really comprehend what it means to admit you have a gift, because so much of our language has become oriented towards prideful boasting about immutable qualities, and other things that weren't earned. It is illogical to express pride about a gift you were given. And if it's a gift from God, then it becomes something even worse to ignore or abuse it, because gifts of that kind are also responsibilities.
Mark, this reminds me of J.S. Bach writing SDG (Soli Deo Gloria) at the top of nearly every important composition he wrote. I love this essay, and I agree with you wholeheartedly.
What a wonderful essay, Mark - and a much-needed topic that goes ignored or rarely considered. There's so much to unpack here, but I'll try. As a fellow artist (graphic designer but also a writer and musician,) my life has been forged by the creative impulse. There's an ineffable source from which great art springs from. I realize both 'great' and 'art' are highly subjective and personal, but for the sake of this comment and in alignment with your essay, let's agree that divinely inspired art defines greatness.
It's that unknowable mystery, the divine spark that not only ignites creativity but guides it. You can tell immediately whether an artwork has it or not. 99.9% of modern art does not. That's a sweeping dictum, but there you have it. Which is why we return to the masters, like de Messina and her divine rendition with that presence out of frame, but more than that, the subtext of her painting, the gift, the presence not only of Gabriel but of God.
AI artwork is utterly devoid of it. It's just sourcing an aggregate of massive data in a particular style algorithm and excreting a pictorial form that mirrors the madness of the human mind that created it. And symbolically, our collective madness, the madness we witnessed over the past three years that's getting louder.
I would rebrand AI as Automated Information, not Artificial Intelligence as it has none.
Divine essence, that sense of the sublime, can be found in any art form. One of the most profound examples in the medium of film is Baraka, a non-verbal 70mm cinematic masterpiece of visuals and music. Recommended, if you haven't seen it.
The divine, in whatever shape or form, cannot be measured, quantified, comprehended, bought or sold - but it can be felt and experienced. This confounds the bureaucrats, the mechanistic transhumanists, scientists, and whoever else you want to add. The fact of a human being open to the divine is also motivated by it in his or her actions is threatening to anyone stuck in measurement or control, such as government and all the soulless distortions we see playing out today.
A divinely connected and motivated humanity, creating, building, living and loving together, is our way forward.
Hi Navyo!
"It's that unknowable mystery, the divine spark that not only ignites creativity but guides it. You can tell immediately whether an artwork has it or not. 99.9% of modern art does not. That's a sweeping dictum, but there you have it."
Yes. We are attuned to what it is and isn't, which is why it's destruction over the past century or so always fascinated me. Weirdly, I think some of it started as jokes (Marcel Duchamp, for example) that spiraled out of control. By the time you got to Pollack or Warhol, the joke had also become yet another financial scam. I plan on writing about the art market at length at some point, but the short version is that art became yet another method of washing dirty money at some point, while also degenerating the society around the crimes to the point that most people wouldn't notice or care.
"The divine, in whatever shape or form, cannot be measured, quantified, comprehended, bought or sold - but it can be felt and experienced. This confounds the bureaucrats, the mechanistic transhumanists, scientists, and whoever else you want to add."
100%. It is the Quality that defies quantification, and therefore defies capture. There is a very good reason why communists and other kinds of totalitarians constantly fear, ridicule and attack it. They know it is fundamentally immune to their predations, because those who have experienced even some small measure of it cannot be manipulated or controlled. They are the kind of loose cannons on whom the usual carrot-and-stick measures don't work as intended, and may produce the opposite of the intended result.
Thanks, Mark. I hadn't thought of the money laundering aspect but yes, it's an easy scam for say, mafiosi, drugsters, politicians or anyone with ill-gotten gains to wash their loot into respectability.
That the divine defies capture is the thing as you so clearly put that freaks out the capital-driven progressive atheists. Yet they have their own religion in Scientism with its rituals, catechism, priesthood and hierarchy. Not that they would see it in this way, but from the outside it's so obvious. Considering the darker aspects such as child sacrifice and taking children away from their parents, it would be more like a cult.
Usually, a cult is the minority. This cult is the majority, which is the weirdness of it for those of us non-members. It's like living inside Jonestown. But I feel that's changing as people start to wake up and the truth starts coming out more and more. The fake narratives just can't hold up anymore.
As you say of the divine, those who have experienced even some small measure of it cannot be manipulated or controlled. Amen.
Three cheers for this, Mark. Insightful and timely. I was recently meditating on the concept of Jesus as friend. To my Catholic sensibility it sounds cringe. "Jesus is my best buddy!" My instinct is to flee in the direction of the nearest Traditional Latin Mass. However, Jesus Himself said that he calls us friends (John 15:15). So how should I interpret this? I started thinking about what I value in my relationships with friends. It is working on something together. When you have a good friend, you have a joint project with them and collaborate on it, or else discuss the separate but similar projects that you both have ongoing. Right? Boom. I need to collaborate with Jesus on my projects, and work on them together with Him. That's how my friendship with Him can develop. I'm just a pulp sci-fi writer, but I don't think He scorns pulp sci-fi--after all He spent much of His earthly life building good and useful things for ordinary Nazareans! And though I say it, sci-fi can be good and useful too.
Thanks, Felix.
"It is working on something together. When you have a good friend, you have a joint project with them and collaborate on it, or else discuss the separate but similar projects that you both have ongoing. Right?"
Right. Although the mechanism of communication differs, I think this isn't a bad way to look at it. Regardless of the motivations involved, a shared enterprise with friends will at the very least clamber over the huge hurdle of trust. We can game out a lot of risk/reward with non-friends and even strangers, but situations will always arise when trust is the only option for moving in a particular direction.
"I'm just a pulp sci-fi writer, but I don't think He scorns pulp sci-fi--after all He spent much of His earthly life building good and useful things for ordinary Nazareans! And though I say it, sci-fi can be good and useful too."
I agree with this. So did C.S. Lewis, FWIW. And for all his flaws, Orwell produced some of the most good and useful fiction ever, and I can't help but think that inspiration was the key. Without it, he becomes a mere H.G. Wells, to be tricked by any totalitarian who rolls past.
Another insightful essay. Thank you. Like every other aspect of life, there was a foulness unleashed into art, with the intent to degrade and besmirch what was given to elevate and uplift. It surely must debase the souls of so-called artists who create monstrosities like that 3 portraits piece you shared. Nightmare fuel!
Also another black mark against AI art. It has no soul, so it is soulless and therefore no matter how technically perfect it is, it isn’t art.
Thank you Nana. Yes, "foulness" is a very apt word for it. There is a stench about certain art and artists, just as there are certain sciences and scientists, certain politics and politicians, etc. The sense that something is rotting in our midst.
I love your thought and work. This especially rings true to me, “In fact this model of mind creates more holes than it repairs, which evil people will then fill with their perverse ideologies and toxic drugs.” That is spot on! Ironically, paradoxically and as-of-yet unresolved, I become more and more convinced that these screens that we use to communicate these ideas are the fundamental altars of an alchemical spiritual process that we do not understand. Whether you are a reductionist-atheist of a believer in the Divine source of creation (as I am) it seems more and more self-evident that the cost benefit analysis to the formation of thought, perception, metaphor or just time spent on these screens is most assuredly negative. I don’t know how to resolve this conundrum as I am an addict of the “toxic drug” of the screen just like all of us here. Being a Luddite, or at least Amish seems more and more like the logical reaction to the chaos of the modern age. I’m not sure it is in my perceptual power to balance out the misdirection of thought that is inherent in this epistemic technological revolution.
"Whether you are a reductionist-atheist of a believer in the Divine source of creation (as I am) it seems more and more self-evident that the cost benefit analysis to the formation of thought, perception, metaphor or just time spent on these screens is most assuredly negative."
Yeah, and this is critical to understand. I have many atheist friends, including here on Substack and on Deimos, who I hold in great regard. What bonds us more than anything else I think is the idea that we, our parents (and in many cases, grandparents) and children were all raised in the epoch of The Screen. That's not to say that other illusions weren't employed before its invention, but the capacity for diabolical (or, in their language, psychopathic) abuse of secondary sources of of manipulated sensory input is something I think we all agree on.
And just to explore this bond further, I strive always to not confuse religiosity with morality or virtue. Hunter Duncan, for example, is a pagan. Does that mean he is necessarily my enemy? To declare him one would be illogical as a Christian. So would declaring someone like Grant Smith an enemy, who is an atheist but not an anti-theist (the difference between the two is stark). Thinking another man is mistaken in his metaphysics is the most common thing in the world, because the truth of existence is the most complex puzzle that confronts us all. Our common enemies are quite frankly a lot more obvious to perceive and define, as metaphysical debate is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the stuff they want to shut us up about.
You do know that Caravaggio was a raving homosexual and murderer. How do you explain him producing beautiful paintings; that told stories, etc? While I commend your desire for sane art I think you and Megha are confusing inspiration with an artist's ability to do things they aren't really tied to emotionally. Mainly, because they need money and like being famous like everyone else.
Aaron Copeland made the most authentic "American" music of the 20th century. He scored Martha Graham ballets like Appalachian Spring; Billy the Kid, ballet; The Tender Land, opera; The Red Pony, suite for orchestra; you get the picture. He was of Russian-Jewish immigrant parents, homosexual, and I doubt traveled west of the Hudson River.
“During these years I began to feel an increasing dissatisfaction with the relations of the music-loving public and the living composer. It seemed to me that we composers were in danger of working in a vacuum.”
Artists cannot work in a vacuum. They need money (patrons) and some kind of recognition. You two need to back off with the romantic crescendos about artists already. Watch Art School Confidential, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364955/. It's a bit simple-minded but is far closer to reality than your blustering schtick on the sainted artist with the wind-swept hair. Give me a break. LOL.
Your problem Mark was that the god you fed was a demon. That's the way it works sometimes. You let a demon into your soul. I hate to say it but sometimes the worst part of a person may be the most interesting. I can tell you that simply by exorcizing demons isn't going to make a person a good artist. You may become a better person, certainly, but not a better artist.
Hi Alex,
Thanks for your detailed comment. I welcome all feedback, including that which disagrees. That said, you've made several errors and assembled some strawmen here that need to be addressed. To be fair, you also nailed something quite accurately, though I think your diagnosis is incomplete.
“You do know that Caravaggio was a raving homosexual and murderer. How do you explain him producing beautiful paintings; that told stories, etc? While I commend your desire for sane art I think you and Megha are confusing inspiration with an artist's ability to do things they aren't really tied to emotionally. Mainly, because they need money and like being famous like everyone else.”
Megha wrote nothing of artistic inspiration in the piece I referenced (though perhaps she has in the past; I don't know). In fact, the entire point of my article was that I thought it was a requisite ingredient that she missed. Neither of us wrote anything about Caravaggio either, or about the many incentives and desires that drive artists to do their work (or frankly, for anyone to do work of any kind). We are writing about the work itself. The process. In my case, it's the process by which an artist collaboratively reveals an angle of the truth, which I do not think can be accomplished by the ego/intellect and imagination alone.
“Aaron Copeland made the most authentic "American" music of the 20th century. He scored Martha Graham ballets like Appalachian Spring; Billy the Kid, ballet; The Tender Land, opera; The Red Pony, suite for orchestra; you get the picture. He was of Russian-Jewish immigrant parents, homosexual, and I doubt traveled west of the Hudson River.
See above.
“Artists cannot work in a vacuum. They need money (patrons) and some kind of recognition. You two need to back off with the romantic crescendos about artists already. Watch Art School Confidential, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364955/. It's a bit simple-minded but is far closer to reality than your blustering schtick on the sainted artist with the wind-swept hair. Give me a break. LOL."
Again, these all seem like strawmen. I never wrote (nor do I think) that artists are “saintly”, let alone that they have “wind-swept hair” (lol, wtf?). To reiterate, what I wrote about was process. I don't think you can cite an example of me implying anything about the moral character of a given artist, or of artists as a “group” (which is an illogical way to look at us, in my opinion).”
The fact that you didn't/cannot leads me to believe this is projection on your part, though I can't guess what it is you might be projecting. If it was meant as a rhetorical flourish, it fails because it isn't rooted in anything real.
“Your problem Mark was that the god you fed was a demon. That's the way it works sometimes. You let a demon into your soul. I hate to say it but sometimes the worst part of a person may be the most interesting. I can tell you that simply by exorcizing demons isn't going to make a person a good artist. You may become a better person, certainly, but not a better artist.”
As far as “let(ting) a demon into my soul,” nobody knows this better than I do. In fact, I've been writing extensively about just that, and I invite your commentary on those articles as well. One of the things that such experiences teach you is to maintain a kind of inner quiet at the core of your being (especially when your work is being mischaracterized, which you seem to be doing here for some unknown reason).
You mentioned Caravaggio (who you seem to favor, while I do not) and his low moral character, which you perhaps think made him “more interesting.” You also seem to equate the financial/social success of an artist with the quality of his artworks, as though he were simply an engineer whose work is judged by how many bridges do or don't fall down. Obviously I disagree, which is why I included a link to the Sotheby's auction of Bacon's horrendously shitty work.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that people who “like” bad art are bad people, but there is certainly a kind of desperate preening and flailing when they discuss it, and critics who will disappear up their own assholes defending tawdry propaganda and Dadaist trash. They've been tricked by their own perverse incentive structures, in my opinion, because they are status-addicts who fear falling out of step with fashion.
While I decided not to include it in this piece, here is a quote from an article on History Collection entitled “The 10 Most Unflattering Portraits Ever Made and the Stories Behind Them”, regarding the execrable work of Lucian Freud.
“It’s worth stressing here that just because it’s unflattering doesn’t necessarily make it a terrible portrait. I personally rate Lucian Freud—partly because I genuinely like his work and partly because everybody else in this country ranks him among Britain’s finest figurative painters.”
LMAO. The author is at least being “partly” honest here (which is partly admirable, heh heh).
Suffice it to say, it's entirely plausible for a person who is typically in the grip of moral lunacy to become a vessel for good art during its process, and for a “saint” to make flat, dead, soulless art. I do plan to do a piece on evil artwork and its process, but again won't comment on the various incentive structures or moral character of its agents. While that's not exactly orthogonal, the art-making process will once more be the subject at hand. I'll also be exploring the aspect of the modern art market as a financial scam, which has particularly been the case for the past seventy years or so.
I invite you to join that conversation too. And of course, if you think I've made an error here let me know.
Thanks for your response. I actually want you (and Megha) to write about art; and look forward to your future articles on this subject. But . . .
"We are writing about the work itself. The process."
That to me is a contradiction. The work isn't a process. It's done already. The process is the technical stuff; stretching a canvas, preparing a surface, sanding, underpainting, glazing, transfer pouncing with charcoal (in the past) while today opaque projector using photos as reference, mechanical reproduction like Richard Prince (who's gotten into trouble copying professional photographer's work); computer-generated stuff is the latest. There's a guy I just read about who uses algorithms to make a series of rectangles in water color (mostly). That's the process.
Inspiration isn't a process, although technique can inspire images. The ancient Greeks invented oil painting and were then able to produce illusions that could fool birds into thinking grapes were real, according to Pliny, describing a painting by Zeuxis, N.H. 35.61-6. He also says Zeuxis painted morality itself in the image of Penelope wife of Odysseus, "of many wiles."
Anyway, I'm interested in what you have to write on this. Thank you.
This was an interesting read. Are you talking exclusively about visual art or do these ideas extend to things like poetry and music?
This has mainly to do with creating images, but it could be extended to other mediums. I think they instantiate differently in those, but the inspiration, intellect and imagination components are still required.
Got it. I was going to take issue with the "storytelling" idea, but if we're talking primarily about images (a topic I know virtually nothing about) I'll save that for another time. :-)
I recently heard Duke Ellington's "Satin Doll" after not hearing jazz for a long time. I instantly recognized a Rightness to it that, at the very least, aligned with the Divine.
I looked into it, and sure enough; he hosted daily bible studies for bandmates and other folks that he worked with.
To be Holy is to be set apart. I think this can be heard, musically. I also think the people respond to it really well. I personally believe that a big part of classical music's sticking power stems directly from J.S. Bach writing Soli Deo Gloria. Similarly, Mozart memorized at least one mass of Palestrina (because the pope did not want the music to get out). I can't point to its influence in Mozart's music, but it may have influenced his genius.