"But now the artist is rightfully seen as the architect of our dreams, the alchemist behind our emotion, and creation is rightfully seen as the purpose of our life, the most practical aspect of our existence."
"This is especially true when all the humdrum professions—firefighting, nursing, childcare—are mere methods of getting rich to spend money on creativity."
This is fairly interesting, would love for you to explore this topic in detail sometime.
Thank you for the comment. It would certainly be a better world if those professions were compensated in a way that corresponded to their value, but that, unfortunately, isn't this world. And those professions aren't really the best methods of getting rich either, just as leaving banking for the theater isn't the wise choice if your goal is money.
1) Schools are cutting arts programs. Here in Seattle, they're cutting a public middle school's jazz band program even though it funnels its members into the nearby public high school's jazz band that is nationally-renowned and has won multiple national and international competitions. They're cutting the program because of budget issues and the jazz band seems to be the most easily erased line item.
2) After my first writing class in college, I showed my father the first five serious poems that I ever wrote. They were very autobiographical. He read them and said, "I like them but who wants to read about us—about Indians?"
Thank you very much, Sherman. In regard to the example of the middle school jazz program in Seattle, that sounds unfortunately illustrative of a much larger trend. The basic principle that the arts are valuable, or even necessary, is one that's regularly challenged—and those programs are always the first to be cut.
Your second point triggers many thoughts in my mind, especially about assumptions on the value of certain forms of art, but I am most grateful that you're sharing so much work today. (If you're reading this comment and haven't read Sherman's Substack—click on his name, find a comfortable spot, and spend some time with his poems and other writing.)
Yes—absolutely. There's a lot to gain from looking through actual source materials or early documents, even beyond the history too.
In regard to your AI question, I'm not sure whether I can answer in a comprehensive way in a comment, though I do believe that people have always cared about how intention relates to outcome, so the means of creation affects how we think about the ends. That seems crucial to me but is something that I don't often hear discussed. I was also reminded of recent advances in generative image technology when I was in a museum recently and saw a hand-written letter that complained about dark room alterations of photographs. Any manipulation removed the artistry, according to this letter—which was written in 1910.
At some point, I'll certainly put my thoughts into an essay, but I need to think through how best to approach the subject. Thank you for the comment and the nudge, Andrew.
I'm happy to have given you the impetus! This is a really cool idea; I want to see it fleshed out, too. Mind if I quote you for an upcoming article? I'd love to give your page a shout in a piece some time soon, and this would be a super convenient way for both of us.
Meanwhile, you can take your time and lay out your thoughts. I agree; that's not something that's being discussed enough. Let's change that a bit.
Please feel free. Anytime. Thank you. I haven't focused too much on the subject here, though I have touched it when the pertinent point is about language. You may be interested in these two issues:
Cennino Cennini
What a name!
"But now the artist is rightfully seen as the architect of our dreams, the alchemist behind our emotion, and creation is rightfully seen as the purpose of our life, the most practical aspect of our existence."
Yes. This.
Thank you, Jenovia.
This is pitch-perfect absurdity and sadder for being so.
Thank you for the kind words and the comment, Kevin.
"This is especially true when all the humdrum professions—firefighting, nursing, childcare—are mere methods of getting rich to spend money on creativity."
This is fairly interesting, would love for you to explore this topic in detail sometime.
Thank you for the comment. It would certainly be a better world if those professions were compensated in a way that corresponded to their value, but that, unfortunately, isn't this world. And those professions aren't really the best methods of getting rich either, just as leaving banking for the theater isn't the wise choice if your goal is money.
Great, great. This brings to mind two things.
1) Schools are cutting arts programs. Here in Seattle, they're cutting a public middle school's jazz band program even though it funnels its members into the nearby public high school's jazz band that is nationally-renowned and has won multiple national and international competitions. They're cutting the program because of budget issues and the jazz band seems to be the most easily erased line item.
2) After my first writing class in college, I showed my father the first five serious poems that I ever wrote. They were very autobiographical. He read them and said, "I like them but who wants to read about us—about Indians?"
Thank you very much, Sherman. In regard to the example of the middle school jazz program in Seattle, that sounds unfortunately illustrative of a much larger trend. The basic principle that the arts are valuable, or even necessary, is one that's regularly challenged—and those programs are always the first to be cut.
Your second point triggers many thoughts in my mind, especially about assumptions on the value of certain forms of art, but I am most grateful that you're sharing so much work today. (If you're reading this comment and haven't read Sherman's Substack—click on his name, find a comfortable spot, and spend some time with his poems and other writing.)
Textbooks from centuries past are always fascinating!
What do you make of AI generating art nowadays? Does this change the equation of how highly society tends to value those who make art?
Yes—absolutely. There's a lot to gain from looking through actual source materials or early documents, even beyond the history too.
In regard to your AI question, I'm not sure whether I can answer in a comprehensive way in a comment, though I do believe that people have always cared about how intention relates to outcome, so the means of creation affects how we think about the ends. That seems crucial to me but is something that I don't often hear discussed. I was also reminded of recent advances in generative image technology when I was in a museum recently and saw a hand-written letter that complained about dark room alterations of photographs. Any manipulation removed the artistry, according to this letter—which was written in 1910.
At some point, I'll certainly put my thoughts into an essay, but I need to think through how best to approach the subject. Thank you for the comment and the nudge, Andrew.
I'm happy to have given you the impetus! This is a really cool idea; I want to see it fleshed out, too. Mind if I quote you for an upcoming article? I'd love to give your page a shout in a piece some time soon, and this would be a super convenient way for both of us.
Meanwhile, you can take your time and lay out your thoughts. I agree; that's not something that's being discussed enough. Let's change that a bit.
Please feel free. Anytime. Thank you. I haven't focused too much on the subject here, though I have touched it when the pertinent point is about language. You may be interested in these two issues:
https://charlesschifano.substack.com/p/when-chatgpt-reads-roald-dahl
https://charlesschifano.substack.com/p/how-we-read-now
Thanks, Charles! Will dive in.