Well, as my daughter would say, “doh!” She’s a fan of the Simpsons. Reading through after it’s explained to me and understanding it is a little, er, *sheepish grin*

Yup, two different conversations. I agree concerning Kurt Cobain – while I was in the service I was a “PIO,” preliminary investigative officer… we had two copycat suicides at our command that I had to investigate. I probably came off as somewhat unsympathetic in the final report; however, explaining what happened to their parents was heart wrenching.

Glad you liked the post Susan! We had a discussion very similar to yours (the psychology and mindset), though it concerned actors in our community theater. I said it was like writing fiction, ala Janet Burroway in Writing Fiction: A guide to narrative craft, that actors must be consummate liars, i.e., they must convince the audience of a practical fiction that communicates an emotional truth the audience can experience – but for which they do not have to pay. I enjoy those conversations Why do I like visiting the sites of you writers? Yup, emotions for which I don’t really have to pay a huge price. Glad I found your “writing life.”

Cheers!

This was also my shot at Kurt Cobain. He created music that touched millions and ‘couldn’t handle the fame.’ Bleh. Yeah, fame’s terrible. Especially when it comes with piles of money large enough to ski down. If a man has fame, money, power in his industry, a wife he adores, and a child and STILL isn’t happy, maybe going out like that is for the best because he’ll never be happy. When I first heard of his death I thought it was tragic. When I read the suicide note I thought it was inevitable. But I have to say I’m feeling like I may be a tad judgemental right now so maybe I’m not as sure as I thought I was about that.

I think we’re having two separate discussions now

I’m down with ranty – and anger… especially concerning publishers! I’ve had a few not-so-pleasant experiences with small houses that focus on poets and short story writers. So then, I’m hoping the ranting anger portion was aimed at publishers who actually accept the premise that art and publicity are the same rather than with me having agreed with the idea that artists are not entitled to an audience.

Now, about the question “What is art?” that seems to have been a bone of contention…? I love Frank Miller, but air is still air, even if nobody breathes it. Ok, not a contested issue. The common “it is what it is” pegs my bullshit meter because it explains nothing. Kind of like the Clintonian “depends on what your definition of is is.” About the only real quality of art that changes with the size of its audience is its popularity, eh? There’s the rub, the contest between the popularity of the art and its creator. Going with your use of Tolstoy, I think he makes it clear that the artist is creating something to hand off to others to experience – not in order to satisfy some kind of approbation lust – but to give something to his audience. The satisfaction of approval is grand and desired, but I would still contend that your conclusion is the most important desire of an artist – “if even one person feels a kinship by reading the story, I’ve bestowed a boon.”

I won’t pretend to have a satisfactory definition of art. Hell, I’m still wading through the subject of aesthetics at the university library. I do, on the other hand, believe art is objective enough to have us argue about what it is or is not. Though the three sources I mentioned in the post were essential to the topic, what prompted the post was an article in the Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism . I realize it isn’t something most people are interested in, but the struggle over the definition of art was fascinating to me… hence, the post. (I don’t know if that link works because it’s a paid library membership, but if it doesn’t, and you’re interested I’d be happy to send the PDF.) The offending bit that set me off is this:

“What is art?” is a troubled and seriously contested question, as we all know. Troubled questions are music to philosophers’ ears, grist for their mills. The “What is art?” industry certainly is humming along. But the question is problematic in ways that make it ill-suited to define the identity of a major field of philosophy. It is not at all clear that these words—“What is art?”— express anything like a single question, to which competing answers are given, or whether philosophers proposing answers are even engaged in the same debate. Kendal Walton, Journal 65:148

Ok, that’s why I’ll never be an artist – I spend all my time thinking about and pursuing useless research! I’ll stop my ranty section now

Cheers!

And what artist in his right mind wouldn’t wish to reach a large audience? If only Kurt Cobain had given it a little more thought, eh?

I think I like Leo Tolstoy’s view of what is art: “Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings and also experience them.”

Now about publicity… I really, really dislike the publishing ‘wisdom’ that I should be able to sell my book by writing ad copy for it. They claim that if I can’t write the blurb on the back well, then I likely didn’t write the things inside very well either. To me, they’re telling a novelist to be a commercial writer. I don’t know fiction trends. I don’t know marketing. While I know the color orange is said to make people hungry, leading to countless orange dining rooms in fast food joints around the world, I don’t know what words make people want to buy a book. If I did, why would I need an agent, publisher, or publicist let alone an editor? But there it is. To a publisher, written works are little more than paper bricks of publicity.

I know that’s ranty. It makes me angry.

Thanks Tom, I am glad to be back! Bottom line here is that I am no different – I would rather have a larger audience! One of Bowman’s points in the article is that we are not entitled to an audience, though Bowman is distinguishing between art in high culture and popular culture. Both your blog and quite a lot of mine are aimed at political discourse in popular culture. I would also draw a distinction between what we do and art, the difference between an artist and an artisan. Where an artist professes to create an imaginative product (painting, sculpting, creative writing), an artisan is a craftsman professing to create a functional product (woodworkers, cabinet makers, columnists). I suppose that’s a crude distinction, but it is the easiest that comes to mind – and I am lazy I like your prose because it is incredibly functional! You are entering the fray (a hero’s journey of its own) of public discourse and debate and have an audience of up to 500 – wish I could say that!! Neither of us confuses our product with publicity, nor do we think we’re entitled to be attended to by the public. I think it’s a good thing that you use your product, your writing, to get over the wall of public indifference rather than publicity stunts – I could be wrong!! It might be foolishly naïve I suppose.

For now, I’ll copy you – engage as many people as I am able, invite them to the site, and hope my audience makes it to 500! And beyond. Campbell’s notion of the hero’s journey has to do with his specialty, myth, hence his word monomyth. It’s a process of the myth, the story, that the hero grows through stages, a cycle to become a hero. Some adventure to become heroes, others venture into the fray to accomplish a goal – and become reluctant heroes in the process. I want to be a part of the debate too, “on the field of combat,” and it was the desire to participate that drew me to this blog. Be careful, I don’t want to be a hero either, but the first step in Campbell’s cycle is the departure !!

See you at the next skirmish!

Tom