Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Book Arrived

My book finally arrived yesterday.

I always like the way that used books have a distinct extra olfactory component (in addition to factory-supplied book smell).
(at no additional charge)

This is a silly thing to start with but I will go ahead. The second PPG of the acknowledgments comments that "the evolution of this book owes ...". I always find the artistic use of that term a bit fascinating.

The majority of what we do professionally is the product of our impetus mixed with exogenous pressures. Sometimes more of the former wins, sometimes the latter. In the case where pressure from outside directs the flow, content, feel, purpose, or impact of something we create ... then that work has truly evolved in the scientific meaning of the word. The parts of the work that have survived this outside pressure have emerged and likely gained more dominance. This can be content or style. For example, I long ago had to learn that in scientific writing exposition of this very nature is not allowed; strongly frowned upon. Thus, my dissertation at the time evolved in response to the external pressure of expectations.

Great, so all I have said is that work often does respond to external pressure and expectations and in that sense does evolve.

But should art?

I have always thought that art is the one domain that should resist external pressures. Expectations often lead to mediocrity; a state of the union where everything is distilled down to a common form that is neither glorious nor horrible. We look for glory and horror in art, however, and should thus encourage artists in some ways to not let their work evolve unless the pressure comes from them. Even this is tricky as pressure directed at work from only the artist can easily be the byproduct of their perception of external pressure, insecurity, and a desire for acceptance.

Thus, I'd like to read a prologue or hear the opening lyrics to an album someday be: This work has not evolved. Deal with it.

That's all I have for now.

Pjk

1 comment:

kneel said...

All this from smelling the book: that is quite the nose you have there buddy.

I question the idea that the only impetus for evolution can come from the artist. It assumes that the "artist" exists in a cave cut off from the society he is from or in. It also privileges the individual in a "romantic" kind of way in the sense of what Jerome Rothenberg says is still ongoing from the late 18th century. The individual is sacred, and can change singly change herself and the world. As if what is being changed has no connection to the changer.

I think that is part of Bhabha's liminal space: a kind of permeable membrane where the two sides of the space are transformed by the other. Maybe?

Great post, PK