Bonfire of The Inanities # 1
Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 09:25AM 
Staring into the void • click to embiggenThe wife and I have a little game in which we stay attuned during sports broadcasts for the seemingly inevitable and totally inane comments that issue from the mouths of sports-type talking heads.
For example, during the recent Dubai Desert Classic (golf), a commentator opined (when the golfers seemed to be lacking intensity on a specific hole) that, "maybe they should be playing for a car" (as an incentive). Apparently, the fact that they were competing for a total purse of $2,515,541 - winner's share = $420,192 - simply wasn't enough of an inducement to 'try harder'. Nope, not at all. Without a doubt, a car would do the trick.
The phrase, "maybe they / he /she should be playing for a car" has now become the go-to expression in our house whenever someone fails in sporting event - the Penguins' goalie is giving up too many goals in a shootout, "maybe he should be playing for a car". The NE Patriots loose the Super Bowl - "maybe they should have been playing for a car". The possibilities for inanity are endless.
In any event, I think it's time to introduce a photography / art Bonfire of the Inanities category. I think this because I have read more than a fair share of highly suspect comments on the subject - not ones with which I disagreed - but ones that are rather ludicrous no matter how you look at it.
And, FYI, the floor is open to contributions. So, in that spirit, here's my first offering.
Over on The Luminous Landscape, in an article about Composition, Alain Briot states, "Art is not a necessity. Art is something we want, not something we need. Artists create art because they want to, not because they have to ... Any of us can live without making ... art."
Briot qualifies the phrases 'is not a necessity' and 'can live' by stating that "... we would not perish the way we would if we did not have food, clothing or shelter."
Yeh. Sure. Fine. Duh. Art, Decorative or Fine, is not a 'necessity' for sustaining the life of the body. But, unless you are committed to the life of a zombie - the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, there is a thing called the 'life of the mind and soul' that is a necessity to living a life.
So, in order to justify his 'necessity' statement, Briot essentially falls back on the much discredited idea that the life of the body and that of the mind / soul can be severed and that a holistic integration of the two is not a 'necessity' for 'life'.
I find that rationalization as caveat / pre-supposition for any discussion / tutorial about art to be totally, completely, and utterly inane.
Add to that the rather curious fact that, coming as it does from a self-professed artist, Briot's statement essentially reduces the arts and the activities of artists to the status of a mere (not born from 'necessity')'want' or 'desire'. While that attitude does not quite render arts/artists inane, it does push them somewhat into the realm of the frivolous or, at the very least, the non-essential.
I, for one, can not accept or abide by that notion.
Most serious artists with whom I am familiar are not making Art because they 'want to' - they are, in fact, doing it because they have to. As David Hockney stated, "Most artists work all the time, they do actually, especially good artists, they work all the time, what else is there to do"? Sound like someone doing it because they just 'want to'?
I also believe that Briot's statement ignores the power of Art throughout history to not only illustrate and question the prevailing cultural paradigm but to influence and shape it as well. They weren't painting those pictures on the ceilings of the Vatican just to entertain the populous. Without a doubt, those pictures were painted with the purpose to influence and shape the culture of the period and, for awhile at least, they succeeded.
Again, David Hockney; "If we are to change our world view, images have to change. The artist now has a very important job to do. He's not a little peripheral figure entertaining rich people, he's really needed.”
There is a prevailing world view that, if we want to survive as a species without destroying our environment, we must 'change our world view'. IMO, any art that that can help change our world view is not a 'want'. It is, in fact, a necessity.
So there you have it - my first entry into the Bonfire of the Inanities category. How about you guys/girls out there - have any favorites?
PS Alian Briot can be found here
And, if I were writing an essay on composition, instead of 8 separate essays on the subject like Alain Briot is doing, mine would read exactly like this;
"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." - Ansel Adams. "Composition is the strongest way of seeing." - Edward Weston.
End of essay - now, go out and "Just do it" - Nike.
gravitas et nugalis
A contrarians opinion (from the wife); "You don't see many political prisoners going on an art strike, where they threaten to become martyrs by refusing art. Ergo, the fellow must be correct."
Reader Comments (2)
You don't see many political prisoners going on an art strike, where they threaten to become martyrs by refusing art. Ergo, the fellow must be correct.
Frankly, I think you should be congratulated for actually making it all the way through one of Briot's articles.
As for "Art", well, to paraphrase myself (who better, after all?), "It's art, folks. Just art."