|
17 Mar 07 - 10:47 AM (#1999484) Subject: The Artist's Path From: John Hardly My friend, Jim, is a guitar/mandolin builder who has carved himself a very respectable (and respected) niche in the local music scene – both with his instruments and his playing as a guitarist. This past half year or so, Jim and I have been playing music with a quartet of friends. On the drive to our friend Joe's (where we play) we often discuss our respective lives as craftsmen. We take great encouragement from this comparing of notes and sharing ideas. One such conversation I found particularly interesting. Okay, I amuse easily. Jim was talking about his journey from his first guitars to the ones he's making now. Very early on in his guitar-building career, he started really designing guitars as he wanted to see them. Rather than more or less copy the great guitar builders who went before – after all, that paved road would have seemed easier – Jim started designing his own guitars. For better or for worse. Jim is THE go-to guy in the area for instrument repair. As such, he rubs elbows with every important musician in the acoustic scene in this area. One such musician for whom Jim does lots of work is a guy who is an internationally known Old-timey player of fiddle and banjo. Anyway, this fellow of great reputation is known for his abrupt manner. He calls 'em as he sees 'em. And he saw Jim's early efforts as a guitar builder as Jim foolishly spinning his wheels and getting nowhere. This fellow suggested Jim SHOULD be copying the masters who have gone before (Martin/Gibson for you guitar players) if he wanted to build good guitars. Jim wasn't quick to dismiss this guy's advice. This guy knows guitars. But Jim wanted to follow his muse. He WANTED his guitars to be different. But Jim was also quick to acknowledge that there really was no good sense in re-inventing the wheel. Surely (he supposed) a trial-and-error approach to his building wasn't really going to net him the best results. Was it? Jim chose to continue to follow his muse. Wise guy that Jim is, of course, he realized that his building wasn't REALLY just simple trial-and-error. He did at least have a leg up by virtue of his repair work. He daily saw how good guitars were constructed. He also saw how even those good guitars had flaws – flaws he could hope to avoid in his own building. As a potter I saw SO many parallels to my own journey as a craftsman… At my age I should be beyond this sort of introspection and navel-gazing. This sort of "what if-ing" should have been worked out and left behind in my forties when guys are supposed to have their midlife crises. But I often wonder, beyond the nature/nurture thing, would I have ever gone beyond a competent mediocrity if I had just set a different course for myself. Like Jim (and his building), I started out sort of "following my muse". But I did so without a clue. I had scant education in clay. I knew two potters – my professor from college, and his professor. All I knew was that I really enjoyed clay. Well, that, and I had few other prospects for my future. I made a decision that changed the course of everything for me. As a young twenty-year-old, I jumped right in to doing art fairs. I had never even fired a kiln on my own. Now, instead of either following my muse or learning more from "masters", I was in the deep end and having to survive. I think that the fact that I could dog-paddle right from the start – and continue that stroke for the next thirty years – actually tells a very large part of the story of why my clay work is what it is yet today – why I never really swam. I was always so busy making a living. I didn't give myself the time to have "learned from the masters" when I had the youth, freedom, and lack of commitments to do so. I have spent most of my career needlessly re-inventing a wheel that only on its best days is even completely round. This is a VERY long post, and it sounds very solipsistic in its approach. I'm sorry for that, but to get to the point…. …how do you all think you fared as regards having started out at the right point in your development as artists? Any of you feel, as I do, that you probably could have stood to learn more before diving in the deep end? Any of you feel exactly the opposite? -- that following ones muse is all that's really necessary, and all the technical stuff will just come on an "as-you-need-it" basis? To steal from Robert Frost -- the road less traveled -- the one we think we took when we were younger -- it turns out that it wasn't necessarily the road that Frost was describing. When we were younger, I think our romantic tendencies had us believing that the road less traveled was the one that abandoned the tried and true -- and, instead, followed the muse. It isn't until it's later (maybe too late) that we figure out that the road less traveled is quite possibly the disciplined road in which some better prepared for the journey? I realize on somw level that it's all just a part of the journey. Either road. Truth is, as I look back, I could have done no other. But I still can't help but wonder if I hadn't isolated myself earlier on, if I would have developed in a different way -- been capable of more. Really curious. I can't go back, but I'm just curious. Maybe you figure that it really boils down to a "you got it or you ain't" factor as regards the spark of genius that sets the best apart -- that defines excellence? |
|
17 Mar 07 - 12:57 PM (#1999534) Subject: RE: The Artist's Path From: Ebbie So, at what stage is Jim in his guitar building? If he is successful in designing and marketing a 'new' guitar (By the way, would it still be called by that name?), will that convince you that re-invention is the way to go? Will re-inventing your own craft and honing your skills in a different and more exciting direction bring you greater satisfaction? For some reason, I just envisioned an urn designed upside down. *G* |
|
17 Mar 07 - 01:45 PM (#1999571) Subject: RE: The Artist's Path From: Bee John, the road already taken is set, but you can turn off into another path anytime. I'm an artist who's travelled a lot of side roads, back roads, wood roads and the occasional garden path. Could have continued up any, stopped or turned back on a few, mostly due to having to make a living in a culture not friendly to women artists. What I produce now is unique, mature, and satisfying, if not lucrative. Take a squint ahead. Your muse is likely not far off. |
|
17 Mar 07 - 04:09 PM (#1999648) Subject: RE: The Artist's Path From: Big Al Whittle A lovely thoughtful and well written post, John Hardly. I enjoyed every word of it. What non artists never get is that, being an artist is probably more about what you reject than what you take aboard for the voyage. And the fierceness with which we have to fight to protect what we believe in - is often translated as negativity. If what we wanted to achieve already existed , there would be no need for us to become artists. In Cakes and Ale by Somerset Maugham, Charles Strickland , the visionary painter says something like if a man falls in the water, he has to swim - it doesn't matter whether he swims well or badly - that is what he has to do. And that is pretty much the predicament artists find themselves in, they are in a situation where they can do no other. James Joyce had to turn his back on family, religion and nationalism. Surely turning your back on Chris Martin is an easier call. |
|
17 Mar 07 - 04:34 PM (#1999675) Subject: RE: The Artist's Path From: Amos I agree on the excellence of your post, John. I wrote and lost a lengthy reply on the strange phenomenon of creative individuation you describe. It is not unusual at the beginning of the artist's path when self-confidence is at an ebb; but in the long run, opening oneself to the wealth of past successful techniques is not a compromise, but a growth of repertory and insight. That's the short version. :) A |
|
17 Mar 07 - 07:18 PM (#1999779) Subject: RE: The Artist's Path From: John Hardly What non artists never get is that, being an artist is probably more about what you reject than what you take aboard for the voyage. And the fierceness with which we have to fight to protect what we believe in - is often translated as negativity. If what we wanted to achieve already existed , there would be no need for us to become artists. In Cakes and Ale by Somerset Maugham, Charles Strickland , the visionary painter says something like if a man falls in the water, he has to swim - it doesn't matter whether he swims well or badly - that is what he has to do. And that is pretty much the predicament artists find themselves in, they are in a situation where they can do no other. James Joyce had to turn his back on family, religion and nationalism. Surely turning your back on Chris Martin is an easier call. That is more than I could ever have hoped for in a response. You have characterized the artist's life drive exactly. And you've encouraged me greatly by your response. When you said... If what we wanted to achieve already existed , there would be no need for us to become artists." ...I was instantly reminded of a quote by Joel Mabus on why he started writing songs. He said, basically, that the songs weren't saying what he wanted to hear. So simple, really. And yet a struggle, none-the-less -- this marriage of skill and wit and inspiration. Thanks. |
|
17 Mar 07 - 07:35 PM (#1999792) Subject: RE: The Artist's Path From: GUEST Fine words Drummer. I know that when I started I just had to go on, and when I quit performance because I wasn't producing work I thought good enough I carried on in my spare time until the work I produced was good enough, and then I came back. I think your point about what we reject defining us is very true. What we don't play and sing is as important as what we do. |
|
18 Mar 07 - 06:58 PM (#2000587) Subject: RE: The Artist's Path From: Big Al Whittle I realised driving home tonight - Charles Strickland was in The Moon an Sixpence - not Cakes and Ale. Sorry bout that al |
|
19 Mar 07 - 05:03 AM (#2000830) Subject: RE: The Artist's Path From: alanabit Whoops! Please ignore my PM WLD! |
|
19 Mar 07 - 08:32 AM (#2000950) Subject: RE: The Artist's Path From: Big Al Whittle always good to hear from you Alan! |
|
19 Mar 07 - 09:19 PM (#2001605) Subject: RE: The Artist's Path From: Stephen L. Rich It is a strange jouney which artist's take. Sometime all one can do is choose a path and see where it leads. Sometimes it's wonderful. Sometimes it isn't. But, it is almost never boring. Stephen Lee |
|
20 Mar 07 - 12:01 AM (#2001724) Subject: RE: The Artist's Path From: Bee-dubya-ell You can tell when John's been busy throwing pots 'cause he gets hypnotized watching that wheel go 'round and 'round and then wanders over to his computer and posts something profound.... I don't think it really matters whether one learns one's craft by emulating master craftsmen or by striking out on one's one. Both paths are equally valid if one is truly serious about mastering one's art, and both will lead to failure if one is not. Learning from a master is supposed to give one a foundation upon which to build one's own art, but an uninspired or uncommitted artist can easily succumb to mere imitation, becoming a "clone" of his teacher. On the other hand, those who practice the "deep end" technique can easily confuse individuality with quality and wind up producing something that speaks to nobody but themselves. A true artist should have enough confidence in his own vision to be able to learn from others without compromising that vision, while also understanding that if he creates his art within some hyper-personal vacuum it may be out of the reach of any intended audience. In practical terms, that means it will never sell and he'd better get used to waiting tables. In reality, though, I think most reasonably successful artists learn their craft by following a combination of the two paths. To exhibit at art fairs, as John and I do, is to be continually exposed to the work of others and one can't help but learn something from such heavy exposure. I regularly try out my own interpretations of ideas I've seen expressed by other artists, and not just other potters. I've stolen some great ideas from wood turners, but that's only fair since they hijacked their entire aesthestic from Ming Dynasty potters. This past weekend I was set up at a show between a painter whose work was Van Gogh-inspired almost to the point of imitation, and a fellow ceramic artist whose work consisted of delicate porcelain tableaus mounted on white canvas. One was highly derivative, the other highly original, yet they both managed to sell a couple of expensive pieces. Meanwhile, my wife and I were sandwiched between them wearing our arms out wrapping and bagging pots. Regurgitated Van Gogh is okay, but nobody ever seems to have enough gumbo mugs or sushi platters. And as far as guitars go, among my dozen or so axes there's a very Martin-inspired Santa Cruz OM PW and a very non-traditional Wechter Pathmaker Elite. I like 'em both. Oh, John, that well-respected musician who gave your buddy Jim crap about his guitar designs wouldn't have the initials D.G., would he? |
|
20 Mar 07 - 12:12 AM (#2001727) Subject: RE: The Artist's Path From: The Fooles Troupe "At my age I should be beyond this sort of introspection and navel-gazing." Rubbish - the older you get, the more of this you are capable of, and the better you get at it. This is why evolution has allowed the older ones past immediate childbearing age to survive - it is useful - they can mind the young kids while the parents bring in the food, and they have time to cogitate and produce lazier and less personally dangerous ways to find food, and drive away predators/enemies. |
|
20 Mar 07 - 04:27 PM (#2002458) Subject: RE: The Artist's Path From: John Hardly "wouldn't have the initials D.G., would he?" That'd be the fellow. Thanks for the comments, by the way. |
