People seem to get around to the “why” questions now and then. Why do we write? Why do we create? Why do we keep doing it, despite the times when we feel discouraged?
Some artists and writers describe their desire to work as compulsive, at times even pursued at great cost and sacrifice. Even in the face of tough odds regarding “success” and the long shot of earning a living, creative people are everywhere and the work continues.
I was inspired to ask these questions of people I know after reading an article in Greater Good entitled “Why We Make Art”. In it, editor Jason Marsh asks seven different artists to explain why they do it and here are some excerpts:
Gina Gibney:
I make art for a few reasons. In life, we experience so much fragmentation of thought and feeling. For me, creating art brings things back together.
Judy Dater:
I like expressing emotions—to have others feel what it is I’m feeling when I’m photographing people.
Harrell Fletcher:
First of all, what is art? The definition for art that I have come up with, which seems to work best for me, is that anything anyone calls art is art. This comes from my belief that there is nothing intrinsic about art. We cannot do a chemical analysis to determine if something is art or not. Instead, I feel like calling something “art” is really just a subjective way of indicating value—which could be aesthetic, cultural, monetary, and so on.
Kwame Dawes:
I write in what is probably a vain effort to somehow control the world in which I live, recreating it in a manner that satisfies my sense of what the world should look like and be like.
James Sturm:
I like the question “Why Do You Make Art?” because it assumes what I do is art. A flattering assumption. The question also takes me back to my freshman year of college, where such questions like “What is nature?” and “Is reality a wave or a circle?” were earnestly debated (usually late at night and after smoking too much weed).
Twenty-five years later I’d like to think I am a little more clear-headed regarding this question. Perhaps the only insight I’ve gained is the knowledge that I have no idea and, secondly, the reasons are unimportant. Depending on my mood, on any given day, I could attribute making art to a high-minded impulse to connect with others or to understand the world or a narcissistic coping mechanism or a desire to be famous or therapy or as my religious discipline or to provide a sense of control or a desire to surrender control, etc., etc., etc.
Whatever the reason, an inner compulsion exists and I continue to honor this internal imperative. If I didn’t, I would feel really horrible. I would be a broken man. So whether attempting to make art is noble or selfish, the fact remains that I will do it nevertheless. Anything past this statement is speculation. I would be afraid that by proclaiming why I make art would be generating my own propaganda.
I can see some of my own reasons in these quotes, things that I can relate to. I also agree that for many, the reasons change over the lifespan. Our circumstances also change, as does our cynicism and sense of limitation.
I’m going to ask this question of a few people myself, to see what turns up.
If you can earn a living through art it is worth it, we spend so many hours of our lives working and that work should be meaningful to us.
The ability to earn from art and writing is about what society values and we have to work to increase the role of the arts.
In my opinion ALL art is motivated by self-interest, but that self-interest falls onto a bi-ended scale (Wow – what an arrogant assertion! I should caveat that I’m extrapolating & assuming & do not consider myself the last word in anything… except myself).
Gibney is in one camp; her self-interest is in bringing a cohesiveness to the world so she can better understand & relate to it. I would consider that the noble pursuit, one of perhaps psychological mending, or just something that ‘helps.’
Dater is on the other end of the spectrum; her feelings are so profound she feels the need to share, an incredibly self-centred notion. My declaration, of course, probably does a great disservice to her & to artistry – hers is a sound-bite, & I must believe that there is much more to her interpretation & expression of the world than that (but then, that IS her statement, what she feels her artistry boils down to).
Fletcher straddles the line, trying to outwardly impose cohesiveness on the world; my crumpled gum wrapper is beautiful to me, it represents society & so I will call it art & art it shall be. But I love the question: “What is art?” It isn’t quantifiable – it isn’t based on effort or technical skill, but on concept with a side order of aesthetics. Artwork can be the result of five years or five seconds.
Dawes – now there’s a self-aware, self-indulgent artist. Don’t get me wrong on Dater – I love self-indulgence & am a hedonist at heart. But (in Dater’s explanation anyway) Dater missed including her knowledge that she’s indulgent.
Sturm’s is my favourite & the one I identify with most. I express a great deal of narcissism in that MY view of the world (my ‘reality tunnel,’ as Robert Anton Wilson would say) is so important that I will put my thoughts down on paper & other people will pay for the privilege of reading them. And yet, I am aware that my POV is NOT shared with most, & so I have an opportunity to perhaps teach or enlighten or simply give someone something to think about without grabbing them by the ears & grossing them out by spitting while I talk.
I’d also like to expand on what Renee says. Earning from art is a wonderful thing, but we self-proclaimed artists have no right to expect this. Yes, our work has significant, even overpowering, meaning to us, but the world has no such obligation to acknowledge it. That is the danger of the arts – when the artist begins to consider commerce, the art ALWAYS suffers. Commerce should be a bonus, not the impetus; it has absolutely no place in the equation of why.
I’m glad to be able to think more about this, and appreciate these responses. I seem hung up on “always self interested” but then again the examples that contradict that are not motives of all artists. For example, artists who incorporate political messages or raise awareness. But of course, this is not a goal of all artists nor is that the intention of every work even by political artists. I guess I would say that SOME art is motivated by altruism.
And you know, art does bring joy to people, or move them, writing as well. We do grow as people for having experienced such things. An artist who creates, mindful of this, seems to have stepped beyond self interest.
I should have touched on the idea of commerce as well before going off on that tear, it is a very controversial thing. Some say that the work of the artist or writer is like a product, by way of skill, something produced and should be valued. To give it away undermines it and devalues it.
Now I don’t personally feel that way, although I would never reject a buck or two to cover costs.
You touch on something even beyond commerce and that is “entitlement.” Ever try to talk about that one? Ugh.
“If you support my commitment to art, you should support me.” Translation: money, rides, rent, etc.
Does society have an obligation to support the artist? To pay for art?
Does the artist decide their worthiness?