Mozart writes:

“When I am, as it were, completely myself, entirely alone, and of good cheer — say, travelling in a carriage, or walking after a good meal, or during the night when I cannot sleep; it is on such occasions that my ideas flow best and most abundantly. Whence and how they come, I know not; nor can I force them. Those ideas that please me I retain in memory, and am accustomed, as I have been told, to hum them to myself. If I continue in this way, it soon occurs to me how I may turn this or that morsel to account, so as to make a good dish of it, that is to say, agreeably to the rules of counterpoint, to the peculiarities of the various instruments, etc.

All this fires my soul, and, provided I am not disturbed, my subject enlarges itself, becomes methodised and defined, and the whole, though it be long, stands almost complete and finished in my mind, so that I can survey it, like a fine picture or a beautiful statue, at a glance. Nor do I hear in my imagination the parts successively, but I hear them, as it were, all at once (gleich alles zusammen). What a delight this is I cannot tell! All this inventing, this producing, takes place in a pleasing lively dream. Still the actual hearing of the tout ensemble is after all the best. What has been thus produced I do not easily forget, and this is perhaps the best gift I have my Divine Maker to thank for.

When I proceed to write down my ideas, I take out of the bag of my memory, if I may use that phrase, what has been previously collected into it in the way I have mentioned. For this reason the committing to paper is done quickly enough, for everything is, as I said before, already finished; and it rarely differs on paper from what is was in my imagination. At this occupation I can therefore suffer myself to be disturbed; for whatever may be going on around me, I write, and even talk, but only of fowls and geese, or of Gretel or Barbel, or some such matters. But why my productions take from my hand that particular form and style that makes them Mozartish, and different from the works of other composers, is probably owing to the same cause which renders my nose so large or so aquiline, or, in short, makes it Mozart’s, and different from those of other people. For I really do not study or aim at any originality.”

In essence, his initial ideas flowed best when he was comfortable, undisturbed, and in good spirits. It sounds like they’d just come to him during this state — and if he came across something he liked, he’d store it in his memory, and then begin to “work with it” by humming to himself. If his interest continued, he’d start synthesizing his thoughts and forming it into something that’s whole — as if he’d begin hearing the symphony playing it in unison. And if it gets to this point, it’s almost complete in his head.

And once he has this in his head, he isn’t able to forget it. It’s seems to be such a deep experience that it takes precedence over all else.

He’d then begin to put this thing in his head on paper. He notes: “…committing to paper is done quickly enough, for everything is, as I said before, already finished; and it rarely differs on paper from what it was in my imagination.”

I was surprised by his last sentence: “For I really do not study or aim at any originality.” While he may not consciously attempt to add anything that gives it a “Mozartish” feel, his work is undoubtedly original. It seems to me that his mind just naturally makes these new connections, which produces original work.

What’s interesting to me is his process of synthesization. How, after initial “prototyping” by humming, he refines it, and then finds it — a true moment of clarity. At which point he just sits back and listens.

It’s interesting to me because I’ve had a similar experience in regards to his creative process, which I plan on writing about soon.

1.^ ^{a b} Sharyn Alfonsi & Wonbo Woo “Music Class Is Hit With Kids, Online Viewers” ABC News Nightline 2009-06-10

————

Here it is performing Coldplay’s “Viva La Vida”

“Michael Jackson’s 1983 “Thriller” remains the most popular music video of all time: a 14-minute horror spoof that changed the business. Behind the scenes it gave its star a temporary home with director John Landis, sparked a near romance with actress Ola Ray, and revealed how damaged the young pop idol already was.”

But writing about art is hard.  So individual, so personal, so varied, so inexplicable.  One person’s art is another person’s shrinkwrapped poo, one person’s eighteen minute long magnum opus of music is another person’s sign that their kid is obviously doing drugs, having sex and will drop out of school.

So what can I offer about something that is so broad? What sort of universal truths can I possibly hope to illuminate when half the time somebody says that something is genius, there’s at least as many people who say it’s BS?

Maybe I can start with a definition.  Here’s what Merriam-Webster’s got to say: “Art is the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects”.

Pretty good I suppose.  Kind of clinical sounding… lab-coated… but hits the major bases.  Skill, ok, that is part of the final product I suppose.  Creative imagination sure, Art is a product of the human mind, but what about art that is not based on something imagined? Like art that mimics nature or historical events; or autobiographical recountings of  personal events or feelings? I mean, I’m pretty sure bluesman T.J. Arnall didn’t have to imagine being strung out on a coke binge when he wrote his song Cocaine Blues.

Another place this  looses me is at the fourth word, the one that qualifies everything else in the definition.  Conscious.  What the heck is conscious? Doesn’t that describe pretty much everything we do besides sleep? Would you describe Jimi Hendrix as conscious during a guitar solo? Did Edgar Allen Poe really know consciously what the hell that Raven was talking about?

This is raising more questions than answers.  Sounds like we need to step out of the lab.

Let’s see what some artists have said.

Hmm art is… art is…

“Art is either plagiarism or revolution.”  Paul Gauguin

Gauguin: naked brown boobies Revolution

Holy shit! This makes me want to run away and hide.  I bet if Gauguin were to come upon my aunt’s watercolors of wheelbarrows and flowers I feel like he might slice them with a box-cutter, or probably light them on fire and use them as a torch to incite the masses.  Seriously, there are a lot of adjectives he’s leaving out here — what about ‘pretty’ or ‘cool’ or maybe ‘thought-provoking’?  I think there are immensely powerful works of art that lend themselves to those adjectives moreso than revolutionary.  A bit harsh there Mr. Gauguin, I dig the sentiment, but I think you’re taking it to a bit of an extreme.

We need a definition for the common person, something that captures the basic human sentiment, the caveman in us…

“Art is collaboration between God and the artist, and the less the artist does the better.”  -Andre Gide

Damn!  God vs. Man, the art world’s main event.  I like it though, the human and the inhuman, where the artist goes beyond himself to produce his best material.  However, I think this takes it too far.  There’s a lot of art that works because it is intensely human — flawed, multi-dimensional, checkered, weak… interesting.  If you go about your art consumed with channeling God or whatever, you risk losing the thrust of your own personhood, your own unique experience that makes your art yours.

I think a lot of artists get caught up in the God fetish, like Michelangelo for instance:

Michelangelo: God and fluffly, windbaggery, cherub-fetish genius

“The true work of art is but a shadow of the divine perfection.”

Mike, wtf is divine perfection?  Wtf is perfection? For the divine, i.e. the creator of all things, there is a lot of imperfect shit going on… wars, cracks in the bottom of the ocean, etc.  And what’s the point of trying to be God when making art anyway? I’m not God and neither are you.  Sounds like all that God is gonna set yourself to pump out some overly fluffy windbaggery art.  You  are damn good at it, but I think you’re leaving out part of the story that makes most art tick.  Somebody back me up here…

A subject that is beautiful in itself gives no suggestion to the artist.  It lacks imperfection.  -Oscar Wilde

There we go.  Divine is beautiful but boring.  Art feeds of imperfections, needs to explore God’s fuckups.

Van Gogh: Pulsating Catharsis

Bad God… bad God makes for good art.  Bad God is mean stuff.  Putting the mean stuff in Art makes me feel good when I take it in.  I love when you can feel the raw catharsis in a work of art, when it just pulsates the badness the artist went through.  It’s something you can commiserate with.  I dig Bono’s art God:

“The music that really turns me on is either running toward God or away from God. Both recognize the pivot, that God is at the center of the jaunt.”

And an absence of Godlike perfection doesn’t just mean bad stuff.  Really, what could be more heartbreakingly beautiful than say, a bunny with a broken leg?

Seriously

Kind of like life I guess: it’s either mind-blowingly beautiful or heart-breakingly tragic — sometimes both — and always streaked with darkness.

This is some epic shit.  Art is epic.

But it doesn’t have to be.

“Painting is just another way of keeping a diary.”  -Pablo Picasso

“The artist does not see things as they are, but as he is.”  -Alfred Tonnelle

Yeah.  Art is expression, and expression knows no bounds and no template.  Skill can temper it, and allow for more complex forms, but the thrust is simple and human.

So why do we view it on par with God? So dang holier-than-thou?  Maybe we are confusing art’s power with art’s nature?  I think we’ve been doing that for a long time.

Through history, as societies have grown and started to wank themselves off more, art has become more and more

Wankable

codified and epic and unfortunately, wanky.  It became like a spectator sport, cities and rich people trying to outdo each other with bigger, grander works.  For the west, starting with the Renaissance, all of a sudden Art was in vogue.  For a century or so, this proved to be a golden age and brave art reigned.  However, the breakthroughs became codified by the newly arisen Art establishment: the egocentric aristocracy of the 16^th and 17^th century.  Art became a pet science for the whims of the rich.  Stagnation followed for at least three centuries, art became “high art” as everyone was trying to copy the Renaissance masters in pursuit of “divinity” and fame and lots of cash.

Malevich's "Black Square". Indeed it is.

This idea of art as something elite, something specific and untouchable, has unfortunately persisted to today.  I think most people believe someone is not doing art unless they are in front of a big canvas, or making a huge sculpture, or generally being “epic”.  In modern I see this manifesting aim to be provocative above all else (i.e. shrinkwrapping a poop or painting a canvas in one single color).  In other words, people see good art as happening when they step outside of themselves and into a new role.  And this is conformity, which is about as close to the antithesis of art as you can get (And for the record I think the poop thing is kind of cool; it comes from a machine!).

The professor of my poetry class in college (one of the most important semesters of my four years) would chastise us mercilessly for “putting our poetry hats on” when we would write poems.  One did this when they assumed that good poetry meant stepping outside ourselves to fill the perceived role: channeling God and Robert Frost and Shakespeare trying to place all our words just so.  He showed us how this yielded BS that was unfulfilling to write and boring to read.

The poetry/painting/music/whatever hat, grown through centuries of wankery, saps the ability of many to create art in their own lives.  Art is not universal: it is not uniformly epic, it does not come from the same God or the same place of no God, and it doesn’t start the same revolution for every person.

Maya Angelou said: “Everything in the universe has rhythm. Everything dances.”

I believe people make art every second of every day.  We are making art when we say good morning to the guy making us a coffee.  We are making art when we write a letter to a friend.  We make art walking down the street, or giving a hug.

Elliot Eisner said: “Art is literacy of the heart” and that heart is yours.  It is up to you to express it and embrace it — however it comes out.

“An artist cannot fail; it is a success to be one.”  Charles Horton Cooley

Be a success.  Be an artist.

Lady Danville is an acoustic folk pop trio from Los Angeles, California. With Michael Garner on keys, Matthew Frankel on the cajon, and Dan Chang on the guitar Lady Danville is most recognized for their well-crafted harmonies, thoughtful lyrics and refreshing dose of energy, wit and charm, evoking the sound of Simon and Garfunkel meets Death Cab for Cute.

The band’s Myspace page can be found here.

“Last spring, an eclectic mix of designers thrilled an auditorium full of their peers at a conference called Radical Craft, put on by the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, Calif. Fashion designer Isaac Mizrahi told inspiring stories of his rise to fame. Artificial intelligence pioneer Danny Hillis showed off a topographical computer display that could render anything, even the Himalayas, in three dimensions. Dutch inventor Theo Jansen brought one of his VW-size “beach creatures” made of plastic PVC tubes that “walked” across the stage like some George Lucas-inspired interstellar crab.”

Ive on his team’s design process:

“One of the hallmarks of the team I think is this sense of looking to be wrong. It’s the inquisitiveness, the sense of exploration. It’s about being excited to be wrong because then you’ve discovered something new.”

Read the article here.