decay # 20 ~ once again, just do it

Twisted stems • click to embiggenThanks to one and all for your comments on man & nature ku # 11.

I am especially encouraged and pleased by those who stated, in essence, that although they may not always agree with what I write and how I picture, what I write and picture does make them think. And, that ultimately, that thinking is /has its own reward(s). I am especially encouraged and pleased by this because it is a validation of how I live and learn - seeking out those things that I do not understand or recognize and endeavoring to come to my own conclusions or understanding about them.

In addition, I am especially encouraged and pleased by this because it would seem that most who visit The Landscapist understand that I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to don the Triregnum (the Tiara or Triple Crown), wield a crozier, wear the Ring of the Fisherman, and speak ex cathedra. To those who think that I am surreptitiously working the College of Cardinals to issue white smoke with my name on it from the next Conclave, I can only say, "Go forth and sin no more.", or, to use the vernacular, "Get a life (and leave a real comment)."

To the point, I just came across this article from which I offer these ideas:

The web is only about 15 years old, but already the conversation about it runs along tired old lines. Elites vs the people, amateurs vs professionals, hierarchy vs democracy - and on and on. For a medium supposedly defined by its transparency and openness, the critical discourse is surprisingly restricted ....

The most intelligent respondents to my writing, no matter how vehemently they disagreed with me, wrote under their own names. On several occasions, I dropped into the comments section and made equally heated rejoinders, also under my own name. I found those exchanges exhilarating. But what I also found was that, in almost every instance, the passion or stridency of my challengers was reduced the minute I acknowledged them....

Critics worth their salt earn their reputations by taking on established taste, whether it appears in stuffy form, or - less obviously - as a kind of adversarial posturing. It amused and then exasperated me that, week after week, I was vilified online as arrogant, elitist ... My blogospheric challengers almost always wrote in the lingo of the subdued commercial herd: "Siegel needs to take his head out of his ass" was a frequent sentiment. I had encountered the same attitudes in high school ....

But, IMO, here's the meat of it:

The responses of the crowd that I encountered on the web always boiled down to either we don't agree with you, or we do agree with you. Having an opinion, agreeing or disagreeing, is quick and easy; reading or writing criticism is a type of patience, just as art is a type of patience ....

As the truly dissenting bloggers out there might agree - and of course they exist - dissent is never in season. I hope those stubbornly contrary bloggers will persist, and use the internet to reform its worst aspects. I certainly intend to keep using the web, in the hope that it will develop into something less herdlike and banal. It will be quite a scrimmage. Technology may change, but humankind doesn't, and as a critic once said .... humankind cannot bear much reality.

I have emphasized "humankind cannot bear much reality" in response to Paul Maxim's question; "Consider some budding photographer who has just taken an image of some mountain, perfectly reflected in a small lake at sunrise somewhere in the Rockies (or Adirondacks, if you prefer). Yes, it's iconic, but they feel they've produced something "special" ... Then they read your blog and discover that their picture is merely "Decorative Art" - not be confused with "Fine Art" ... They read that "Decorative Art" isn't a bad thing, but it doesn't quite cut it with respect to getting people to think about what it means to be "human" ... So how does one respond to that?

Well, one way for a sentient person to respond - that is, in part, a person who questions "everything" (thinks for themselves) - would be to simply say, "Well, well, looky here. Somebody thinks that what I am doing is not Fine Art. Maybe I should explore this idea of Fine Art a little more. Maybe, just maybe, there's something in it. After all, I am always striving to take my art to the next level. What have I got to lose? If I disagree, I can just move on down the line in my pursuit of learning."

Here's the "reality" part in all of this - if, in reality, all one wants is to keep one's head in the sand (planted firmly in a dark place) and thereby feel happy as a clam, then, by all means, just do it.

Comments

[Mike O'Donoghue]

Deco-Art/Fine Art. Who really cares? Main thing is you're being active in your endeavors! Problem is this "artificing" requires a continued input of raw materials which as far as I can see are rapidly dwindling. I foresee the not to distant future where just surviving will occupy our time and these pastimes we are now enjoying will have vanished into irrelevancy. That is the reality of our situation. So: enjoy what you're doing while you can until more pressing issues take the stage.