I love art. My favorite definition would have to be the idea that it’s very uselessness defines it. Even more than that I love stumbling across examples of how others have used this concept of art (however you should choose to define it) to live their lives.

I don’t think you can come across any stronger (or stranger) examples of this than conceptual art, (check the Wikipedia entry for further info) or performance art (again Wikipedia). I love this stuff, and my recent wikiwanderings have inspired this brain to a sort of jealous motivation to go out and participate in guerrilla theater. (Wikipedia)

Perhaps the applicable question here isn’t ‘why?’… it’s ‘why not?’ We’ve been given this chance to do the life thing on this small planet here, and for those of us who find themselves saddled with an artistic mind-set, what better goal could you set for yourself than to create moments within the public discourse; moments which, for lack of a better word, are beautiful.

The reason this is so fresh in my mind is another example of what talking plant spoke of in his excellent post ‘it’s been found‘, namely the idea of the internet working as a wonderful tool for tangental thinking. Without going into the details, suffice it to say that I came across a number of references to Joseph Beuys in the comic Cat and Girl, and not knowing who Joseph Beuys was I Wikipedia’d him and came across this…

Perhaps Beuys’ most famous performance work is How To Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare (1965), in which he walked around a gallery with his face smeared with honey and covered in gold leaf, carrying a dead hare to whom he talked, explaining the pictures before them. The audience for this performance was kept outside, only able to see the goings on from behind a clear screen. Beuys said the work was concerned with issues such as human and animal consciousness, and the problems of thought and language. Wikipedia

Oh great shades of phenomenal brilliance! Now before going further allow me to state that had I seen this particular work performed, I would almost certainly not have stood there thinking to myself - oh yes, of course the problems of thought and language, the differences between the consciousness of humans and animals - nope, I would have had myself one heck of an entertaining time watching another jester work out some inner theme that was ultimately unknowable to me. I probably would have gleaned some message, but what that message would have been, I’ll never know. That isn’t the point.

The point (should there be one, which is of course up to you to decide) lies in the fact that he did it, and people watched. The point lies in the fact that he called it art and felt compelled to perform it. From the same Wikipedia entry we have this -

Beuys believed society to be one great artistic whole. The artist has a key role in giving human society meaning and spiritual depth. This was why Beuys liked to see himself as a shepherd leading the flock.

Uh-oh, now we’re venturing into dangerous waters, but don’t worry . . . it’s only art.

What interests me is if there is something else there besides mere egotism. The first thing I stumble over is the idea of society as an artistic whole; it’s a bitter pill to swallow at a time when Paris Hilton is famous primarily because a sex tape of her appeared on the internet right before her reality show was set to premiere. But simple disgust does not negate the facts, and the truth of the matter is that Paris Hilton is leading society (or at least a segment of it); the real trouble is where is it going? And even more troubling; if you don’t like where it’s going, what are you going to do?

- uh
- err
- {stammer, cough}

Exactly. Let’s face it, the cognoscenti are certainly the minority voice in contemporary discourse, and I don’t think it pessimism to state that I don’t see the trend starting to reverse.

Of course that could be a good thing, I think it applicable to quote talking plant from a conversation about this very subject -

“I view what we are doing as a trimtab roll. We don’t want everybody doing what we are. Most of them don’t have the style for it anyway…”

What matters here is that those of us with the motivation to participate enter the artistic battleground. Cause sensations, it doesn’t matter if they’re small ones, grab hold of even one person’s attention and confront them with something that will force them to think.

Hopefully we’re all conversant with the idea of memes, if not you can always turn to Wikipedia, but this particular article is huge, so perhaps a snap definition is in order.

A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another. Dictionary.com

Sort of like a mental gene, and memes abide by Darwinian laws; the good ones survive by fostering a more socially fit individual. Of course there are a number of problems here, principle among them being what is deemed socially fit in the contemporary discourse, but they are still a potent weapon in the arsenal of anyone interested in ‘leading the flock’ towards a more sensible world.

Interestingly, memetics suggests that memes have the potential for a much more lasting effect than genes. Most organisms pass their genes on to their offspring sexually, but with every generation the genetic contribution of a given ancestor halves - so that a person only has 1/4 of their grandfather’s personal genes, for example (of course most genes are inherited in common). Susan Blackmore has poignantly evaluated the legacy of Socrates. Since the 5th century BC Socrates’ genes have become thoroughly diluted (dispersed); however, his memes still have a profound effect on modern thought and on contemporary philosophical discourse. Wikipedia

What is really interesting to me about this is the idea that while that segment of the population currently under the sway of pop-culture may have a better chance of passing on their genetic heritage, the cognoscenti (although perhaps hampered by the lack of an easy way to reach mass audiences) have a much better chance of surviving memetically.

Perhaps this is blind optimism, a dreadful symptom of these rose-colored glasses that I’m so fond of wearing, but that’s alright. I honestly believe that the cognoscenti (perhaps because they do not have to reach the masses directly) can always be more creative, and more compelling than pop-culture can ever hope to be.

So don’t worry . . . it’s only art, but if you can reach just one person and tweak the inner workings of their perspective, that can be one of the most profound changes available to us on this planet, and in this society thing. Art can appeal directly to emotion, and rewire your inner workings in such a subtle way that you don’t really notice it until you find yourself acting or thinking in a novel fashion, and it is only in hindsight that you can pin-point what lead to this inner revolution. Besides, guerrilla theater just sounds fun.

I’ve already been about this in a number of small ways; i.e. I’ve had way more fun with sidewalk chalk as an adult than I did as a child, and have been known to turn myself into a walking spectacle from time to time.

This post is my way of re-affirming this ideal inside myself, spurring myself to continue and expand upon these endevours and hopefully providing food for the thoughts inside you.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 14th, 2006 at 5:45 pm and is filed under indiscriminate, philosophy, guerrilla theater. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.