art talk

so the illustruious question of the purpose of art has erupted and has a few taspers thinking. i feel like i should put my two cents in on this one: a feeling of obligation transcending from both my passion for creating art and a bit of guilt for only reading the political post and not responding to them on behalf of my fear of doing so (sorry about that guys).

art. created by artists right? but what the blue jeans is an artists. let me do as socrated would not want one to do when defining something: i'm an artist. leonardo davinci was an artist. britney spears is an artist (huh!?). you (!) are an artist. if you are reading this, you are human. you are capable of original thought. you are creative (know it or not). you have some thirst that drives you to communicate (like it or not). you do it (consciously or un).

i have said it a million times. it has been said a zillion times in the history of man. it's become a cliche. it is: 'art is life'. this is a universal truth not universally accepted. accepted or not, however, it is truth (though not necessarily fact, but then again: who knows the facts?).

let's define the term 'life'. above, when i listed all the things which are examples of artists ... wait -- i didn't write that an artist is all those things: i wrote an artist is all those people. we all know the difference between the two. a human can percieve the natural world around him and create a synthetic one of his one and in turn perceive the that one. he can analyse the actions of those around him. he has a thirst for knowledge and a propensity to venerate those who transcend the world of knowledge into the world of wisdom. he makes mistakes all that are sooner or (the more often of the two) later in some way amended. bottom line: life is worth experiencing because it is perceived, thought about, and improved upon or worstened. that is to say that life, in this context, is human existence.

there is no doubt that art reflects human existence. a man sees a flower. he basks in the glory of its mystery. where did it come from? why does it exist? what kind of journey is it on? how has it developed? in man's quest for science he uses art as a tool for documenting his observations. documentation, perhaps the lowest form of art, however, an art nonetheless. without this form of art, advancement for humans would be impossible (remember that documentation takes the form of writing as well as drawing as well as song as well as drama).

without it, how would we remember with as great exactness as we do with it the things that we encounter. more importantly, perhaps: how could we communicate it to any other. from documentation (a translation of biased observed -- perhaps temporary -- happenings into a form understandable and permanent, called art, to the creator and to his peers, present and future). without art, namely that of lascaux, how would we know that animals were the things cave men perceived their existence upon? without art, how would we know of classical values held in the philosophy of plato or the comedy of aristophanes. without art, what wisdom would we hold today: i'll make this one easy, the same wisdom held 10 000 years ago: everytime it would have been thought up, it would have died with the person who thought of it who couldn't pass it to his children for them to develop it further for there was no form of communication: no art.

take appointment (please, forgive the lack of accent marks). she sees life and she acts it out randomly and in public. she re-lives her experiences because they meant something to her. in this way she can perfect her own view of that experience: truly see it just as one must re-read a book again and again to truly know what exactly happens off as if it were their second nature. why make an observation known as second nature? so that you don't have to think to hard upon analysing. once you know life like the back of your hand, once you truly see it, details just pop up to support your thesis when analysing it, life. but something even more magical happens. her victims see it too. she, we all know, effectively sonveys the moment with such precision that the unassuming victim has no choice but to stop and stare and think and (in addition to enjoy) to know and to ponder and to conclude and to support.

now, not only is appintment (again, i apologise) in a better state through a better understanding of herself, her world, and their connections ... but she is proving all that by passing the torch. her message will live on in the person who saw it. she lives on in the message. she has inspired. she is in the inspired. the inspired will inspire others now. and live too in those second-generation inspired.

you see. if an understanding of life is faith, art is its religion. art is our way of expressing what we know and what we feel about what we know. mohammed, buddha, jesus: what did they all have in common? their common dream was to spread their understanding, their view, their perspective. they were great artists. they still live today. in islam, in buddhism, in christianity: people go on, worshipping these people with ideas expressed.

this post has become entirely too long. i hope you all were able to make it to the end. that's me and a chip of the iceberg on my view of art. as you can see i can go on and on but i love you all too much to do so. so with that, i leave you, hopefully inspired (as a true artist).

.loves.and.misses.

.christopher.a.rodriguez.
on 14 september 2 003
@ 0010.