Comments on: Don’t you just love the new layout of Failure???

By: admin

admin — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:28:42 +0000

Well, sure. “Mike” was ego-centric, but isn’t it interesting that it was through art that he fed his ego? That’s what I’m grappling with. How and why do people decide that art will be the locus for all of their dysfunctions and neurosis? And why do they all torture me with this?
As for Esther, I’m almost sure she has never tortured anyone with her pursuit of art. If you ever met her–and it’s possibly might some day, Pretty Lady, since she a Brooklyn neighbor of yours–you’d know that after just five minutes of speaking with her. Probably one of the few absolutely full-of-life people I’ve ever met.
Thanks, and kudos, by the way, for your thoughts about art and work and honesty…

By: Pretty Lady

Pretty Lady — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:08:03 +0000

Now, Michael, you didn’t write an article about the artistic drive at all. You wrote an article about the egotistic drive. Boring one’s friends to death about a project that one isn’t actually working on is NOT ‘working on a screenplay,’ it is an attempt to gain validation of self by manipulating the perceptions of others. This person ‘failed’ because he didn’t even try.

You also have no idea whether your successful friend engaged in this sort of tedious friend-torture at all. I’m willing to bet that she didn’t. Even if she did, at least her story would have changed from time to time, because she was actually moving forward.

Being a successful artist requires, at the minimum, the willingness to work very hard for a very long time, and the willingness to honestly assess one’s own shortcomings. A person who is entirely invested in ego may sometimes do the first, but will almost never consent to the second.

By: admin

admin — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:34:30 +0000

In all of this, to one degree or another Sam, I’m just reporting what is. I’m not filtering things through my own self-interested lens (as I’m not, myself, an artist), just observing… In this particular essay, I was concerned foremost about the foibles, drama, and shortcomings of artists, and how they make their decision to become artists, and how that contributes to the overall failure of art (in America). The crux of the piece is not the obvious point–that some artists become artists for the wrong reasons. Rather, the crux is if this is true, then why? Why are certain people drawn to the artist’s mantle, even when it’s absolutely the worst thing they can do? What is it about the artistic temperament that is so self-defeating?…
Meanwhile, thanks for writing in. I’d love to read more about your professional experiences, and about the professional experiences of other artists.

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:23:40 +0000

Reading this latest article was like looking through a fascinating window into a foreign land. In fact, I think it may be the rosetta stone into understanding your perspective on the art world. In particular, it all coalesces in the last two paragraphs, where you (perhaps) correctly identify the secret of Esther’s success, though I have a hard time following your reasoning (her hesitancy to interview her grandmother could betray the very psychological hangups you condemn earlier in the article). But prior to that, her behavior, your speculate, was perhaps identical to that of Baby Huey. So while you conclude that she is successful due to her diligence, you entertain the belief (and I sense, subscribe to it fundamentally) that it’s all just a matter of chance. But then, so is life, and by extension, all other professions as well.

All the successful artists I have met have been intelligent, practical, and professional. They have honed their skills, have an entrepreneurial mindset, and approach their life/work concienciously Likewise, the obnoxious artists I have met have been shallow and flaky. Nobody wants to be around them except for their small clique of likewise shallow/flaky. But why you think these attitudes are particular to the art world is beyond me. The same folks are in cubicles, classrooms, and carpools all across this great land.

Perhaps the problem is that the artworld humors these people, believes they’re “misunderstood” or unappreciated, when in fact we should just ignore them. Perhaps a little scorn for flavor as well. To that extent, I think your article succeeds. But I fear your tone will just empower the pathetic in their self-righteousness… and therein lies it’s shortcoming.

Along these lines, I recommend a great old book, “Born Under Saturn,” about the formation of the modern artist way back in the Renaissance. In it, we learn wonderful anecdotes such as the premier painter of angelic cherubs back in the day was in real life a profound asshole. The point hammered home, is that “art” is a skilled trade and business, subject to the rules of the real world. All that other stuff is just yammering by the lacking.