Current Contemplation: Art Decade, A Follow-Up to "A New (Art) Career in a New Town

A follow-up to my previous post, "Current Contemplation: A New (Art) Career in a New Town"

There were a few points in my last post that I thought were unclear, and I want to touch on some of those here.

1) "Artistic Integrity"

With Bowie's insight, I wanted to re-define what it meant to have "artistic integrity".  This is because I think as a young artist, our definition usually looks like:

1) Referring to a work of art (any medium) that holds true to the creator's original intended design/meaning
2) Referring to the artist's character and strength of will to stand by their intended vision.

These definitions on the face of them are fine, but usually these two objectives are a source of turmoil because it's assumed that the meaning/vision of the piece will go against the public's (or audience's) tastes (if not definitely at odds with studio executives who hope to cater to the public's preferences).  Thus, how do you keep your intended meaning of the piece when outside sources will influence it against your will?

Thus, Bowie's insight that, "The idea that the piece of work is not finished until the audience come to it and add their own interpretation and what the piece of art is about is grey space in the middle.  That grey space in the middle is what the 21st century is going to be about." offers an alternative reading to this problem.  Meaning is no longer determined by artist alone, and authorship is shared.

Now, "artistic integrity" can be redefined because the relationship between artist and audience has changed.  Meaning is a collaborative effort derived from a pluralistic society that a medium like the Internet is the natural outcome of.  Thus, we should redefine"artistic integrity" as that found in the meaning we - artist and audience - give the work of art.  And the truth of said meaning should be evaluated based upon how close it comes to conveying something Divine (a Biblical Truth) to us.

Another advantage of this new definition means that we do not have to concern ourselves with how monetary gain may or may not affect the amount of integrity we have.   It is only because we now look to the arts as a career opportunity that we have confused and conflated the idea that monetary success is an indicator of the value.  This is because we begin to view that arts like any other career (ie banking), which in American means that the success (the integrity and value) of your work in your field has a correlation to the amount of money you make from it.  But this is grossly inaccurate.  As Bowie stated, "I don't begrudge any artist for getting an audience. I'm sorry, I never found that poverty meant purity."

2) Pluralism vs Singularity

A quick touch point here, I want to clarify that I think the rise of pluralism in the post-1970s world is good as it relates to the art world.  I'm not referring to the trend of moral relativism which has swept the western world over.

I am talking about how I think it's a good thing that there can be multiple sides to the same narrative, and that multiple interpretations of an art piece are not only valid, but also beneficial to establishing the true meaning of the piece.  In this fashion, we are able to understand art as a collective discipline made up of singular works and ideas (in a sense, the best of both).  This means that art is not a competitive field, but one that offers all of humanity an opportunity to create and share together.

Pluralism breaks down when trying to establish the validity, or truthfulness, of the collected meaning that artist and audience establish (the "grey space in the middle").  It is here that the collective interpretation must be weighed against the objective standard and Truth of the Divine (God's Truth).

3) Collaboration vs Solo Work

In my post I also wanted to challenge the concept of the lone artist doing a piece of art in which they alone imbue it with meaning.  The idea of Dante writing alone in his study the Divine Comedy is a romantic notion of days long past.  In reality, almost all pieces of art today require multiple hands to make it work.

Don't get me wrong, that isn't to say I think there is no such thing as solo work, or an artistic genius and figurehead (I'm obsessed with one, remember?). But as young artists I think we all too easily fall into a trap of having a solipsistic perspective where the individual's work is the only source of creating and bestowing meaning upon art.

There may be a central figure, a driving force behind the vision, but each visionary also relies on their team.  Bowie's albums would be nothing without producers like Tony Visconti and Nile Rodgers, or guitarists like Carlos Alomar, Earl Slick, and Mick Ronson, or pianists like Mike Garson.  Even a writer (whether music, prose, etc.) relies on editors, publishers, etc. to help develop and distribute their ideas.  Thus, in our current artistic environment there's no such thing as a solo artist producing an innovative work on their own.  Even at the most extreme end of the spectrum, we rely on our friends and family (our audience!) to give us feedback on our art whether it's writing a script or painting a picture.

This new perspective therefore allows us to see other artists (and audience members) as equal collaborators.  This aligns well with the Biblical vision in which we are all equal under God, and that we all have an opportunity to contribute our individual talents to His kingdom.  Not only that, but as humans we must by nature be dependent on others - specifically God.  We are unable to do anything with only our own strength or power in comparison to the Lord.  And as such, we shouldn't consider ourselves as the rugged, American ideal of independent individualism in such a divine space as making art because it's just not true, and it's not helpful to creating better works that Glorify God.