I've been challenged concerning my ability to separate the art from the artist. I don't have to like a person to support what they do.
Liking someone as a person is a perk, and an even bigger perk if I actually know them.
I do, however, think that my appreciation of what someone does, should be a prerequisite to any expectation of my attention, promotion, appreciation, or support.
If I don't like it, I don't throw my money at it, or waste my time showing up and suffering through, or faking interest.
It doesn't matter who else is going to be there.
If I just want to hang out with a group of people, I can do that without being subjected to noise, junk, or mediocrity.
In this age of "likes", your presence is often misrepresented as, or perceived as endorsement.
What you lend your name, reputation, time, and energy to, matters. What's laughable is the notion that the endorsement of anything or anyone even remotely associated with you, is an endorsement from you as well. Not so.
If you don't think what you have to offer is of any merit unless specific people give it the thumbs up, you handicap yourself, and ignore a potentially appreciative audience.
Tastes vary, and many have proven that there's always an audience for just about anything. When an audience is found, why waste time lamenting who isn't in it.
Stressing over, or being angry or disappointed about who isn't there, is a sign that one enjoys what one does at a lesser degree than one's desperate need for certain others to enjoy it.
Worrying about who isn't there may expose one's need to compete with, needle, or one-up others who are engaged in the same activity --and one needs to seriously address that.
Why minimize the favor shown by those who actually showed up, by stewing over who didn't?
The accolades given to the artist shouldn't overshadow the beauty of the art. Isn't the art the point?
Unfortunately some artists diminish their art by revealing that what they really seek is attention for themselves.
When the art is intrinsically tied to who they are, the minute the art diminishes or is no longer relevant, self-worth suffers.
Fans are fickle.
At some point, artists have to not only love what they do, they have to love it regardless of whether others do or not.
So...do you, do it well, and celebrate those who celebrate you.
Don't stoop to making others look bad in order to elevate yourself, or bashing those who aren't on board with your artistic agenda. Consumers of Art have a perfect right to their tastes. Unfortunately, many equate a rejection of their art as a rejection of them as people. That can't be farther from the truth. That's the dilemma.
Some can't separate the art from the artist, so they reject both, while some artists can't separate themselves from their art and take it deeply personally when it is not widely regarded.
Interestingly, when some people fail to get the audience they desire, they go after what they perceive to be the next best thing--a default audience that has close ties to their desired audience. If they can't get you, they chase down who they believe is your representative as if they've executed a successful coup. Despite the nature of a representative, a representative is not the person they represent.
They have feelings, ideas, moods, likes, and experiences of their own.
I know for a fact that I was asked to participate in particular things because the organizer hoped well-connected friends of mine would show up.
If they had, the purpose of their presence would have been hijacked.
I feel sorry for people who are delusional enough to think that they have the right to test the strength of your relationships, use them to their advantage, and manipulate the people closest to you.
Perhaps they forgot that you are in constant contact with those who are closest to you, and you do discuss, and even laugh about the schemes that others employ.
It's not required that I approve of the people with whom my friends work.
I'd tell anyone, when lucrative opportunities come, unless the alliance will cause harm, damage a reputation, or future work, or is with a psychopath or Satan, "Do your best, and go get that check".
This notion that you have to be enamored of people to work with them is ridiculous. I mean, it helps, but it is not mandatory.
Get that coin, and if they're truly strong, your alliances will survive--in spite of the divisive schemes of some self-absorbed, manipulative jerk who thinks that they have the power to influence, or draw away those with whom you have healthy working and personal relationships. That's just a devil. That's what that is. Stomp on it, keep it moving (all the way to the bank), and like what you like--freely and apologetically.
One of the tricks of advertising is to get a popular person to endorse a product. The hope is, that if Consumer A likes the product, Consumers B, C, D, and E will jump on board--sight unseen. Remember the Vitameatavegemin episode of "I Love Lucy"? It didn't taste like candy. Lucy had to get drunk off of it to appreciate it. The director told her, "No, no, no. You're supposed to like the stuff!" I fear there's a lot of that going on. Someone is telling you that something is good, or expecting you to like it just because they do. You've experienced it, and have concluded it's not, and you don't. You have a right to prefer the Art that motivates, inspires and moves you, even if that means being in the "out" crowd.
I'd think that producers of a product would just prefer that you actually like the stuff as opposed to just saying you do, stocking up on it, and never opening it. We don't all share one brain.
We don't all have to like the same things.
It doesn't make you a hater if you choose to decline one offering or another.
It just means you know what you like, and have no desire to betray that.
Art is subjective. What's that old saying? "One man's trash is another man's treasure".
The climate I've noticed in some circles is a groupthink mentality that has promoted mediocrity so much, that the mediocre now believe they're outstanding, beloved, and superior to that which is truly excellent.
I've noticed a tendency by some to dismiss that which is , timeless, and deservedly relevant, but they can try until they are blue in the face.
People know what's good, and they will search and find it even when it is not being offered.
There really is nothing new under the Sun, just different players, and a lot of players are riding on the coattails and hanging on to the remnants of supernovas.
Were it not for what came before, some things would not be.
I'm a baby boomer, and I'm spoiled rotten when it comes to Art.
My eyes and ears and senses will mutiny if I expose them to something and try to make them think it's good when it is merely a poor or desperate attempt to mirror someone else's work.
Packaging is fine, but it is useless, deceptive and disappointing if what's inside is rotten, sub par, or an assault upon your senses.
It's a shame when the Art can't truly speak, or be appreciated because of the antics, personality, reputation, or demeanor of the artist, but it happens all the time.
Posts
