After brainstorming ideas for different projects that ran from making a board game to filming a Bill Nye-esque video that would tell the history of a particular artist or artistic movement, my group chose a project that would question some assumptions about art: 1) Art Must Be Beautiful; 2)Art Must Fit Into A Room Or Be Appropriate To Be viewed by your mother; 3)Art must have value in the marketplace; and 4)Art can only be Understood By Intellectuals. These four statements were taken from a long list of such statements that we found on PBS.org (I unfortunately cannot now find the survey), and we all agreed that these statements put a lot of unnecessary restraints on art (I actually believe that art must be beautiful, but my concept of "beautiful" is so loosely structured that I can let that slide in this discussion). The ARTagonists were born. We set out to find examples of art in four fields -- film, visual art, theatre, and music -- that contradicted these statements that we would eventually compile into a video.
As we began to search, I spotted another statement in the survey that caught me by surprise: Anything Can Be Art. I found that I disagreed with this statement too, but in a different manner -- while we disagreed with the other statements because they limited art, this one was a dangerous assumption because it didn't limit art enough in my eyes. I presented it to the rest of the group. What if, at the end of our video, we debunked this myth too? A twist ending of sorts, in which we presented an opposite view from the first four statements and presented clips of people, TV shows, and objects that we did not feel to be artistic. The group liked this idea, but in their hands it was quickly molded into a new idea, where everyone chose clips of everything and anything -- stuff they found exciting as well as unappealing, pieces they felt were works of art as well as those that weren't. They wanted to make the statement, that, yes, anything could be art.
I didn't. And I still don't. I am a firm believer in the principle that not just anyone can do what I do, or that any thing on this planet can be art, for one simple reason -- no one would tell a brain surgeon that anyone could do brain surgery, or an athlete that anyone could play professional sports. Why do we, artists, allow people to tell us that what we do isn't special? AND, for those of us attending a four year university to study our work (I'm assuming that's the vast majority of my reading base), that it doesn't require a skill set? I'm not saying I learned everything I know in a classroom -- I most certainly did not -- but I learned nonetheless. I have struggled for years to try to understand how to better do what I do.
But tolerance is what really separates me from the others. Superhuman tolerance. The tolerance to cope with pain, rejection, and UNENDING WAVES OF BULLSHIT. As an actor, even after I'm lucky enough to be cast in a show, I often find myself surrounded by directors and cast members who have no respect for the script, the themes, even something as simple as story. Oftentimes they're only interested in a flashy smile, a cheap laugh, a way to strut their stuff. It breaks my heart to see plays abused that way. And yet I endure, because I believe, perhaps foolishly, that performance is the kindest and most beautiful thing human beings can give to each other. That kind of endurance is not normal. Not everyone is cut out for that.
Of course, I didn't have to say any of that, because I can make my "not anything can be art" case in one simple example: Arthur Kade.
WOW people scrolling through this entry are going to the get the wrong impression. Click on that picture and take a look at his blog. Arthur Kade is the biggest asshole since Victor Emmanuel II. About 9 months ago, Kade quit his shitty job and decided he was going to become a world famous, award-winning actor. Nifty, except for the fact that he can't stop smelling his own shit. He's accomplished absolutely nothing in nine months, but speaks of himself as if he is the second coming of Christ. Armed with a talent for acting that rivals only a tree stump's, he blogs everyday about how big of an international celebrity he has become. Funny, because in the months I have spent following his blog, not once have I seen him write one word about the nature of his technique, or why he feels compelled to act beyond his insatiable lust for fame. He's delusional to the point where I feel this may be an extremely elaborate joke, but I believe that level of commitment to portraying a famewhoere douchebag merits legitimate famewhore douchebaggery. But hey, he makes me laugh, so there's merit in that.
Take a look at these videos and decide for yourself. Is this art? Or is this indulgence?
He even spelled Mamet's name wrong.
An apology: I want to apologize for the extremely insensitive nature of that tsunami video. But I wanted to find a video of funny waves, to lighten the mood, so I typed in "comedy tsunami" into Youtube and found that. The fact alone that someone married cheery music with those images makes me laugh, so I hope we can all have a chuckle instead of hoping that I spend an eternity in damnation.
Love,
Ian
