Art, learn from the masters or just learn?

I have always thought that learning to play songs someone else wrote, was stupid. Less than (or more than) stupid, insipid. Degenerative.

In my writings, I've entered contests for prose fiction and screenwriting and seen success. But at this point in my life, I feel I never want to enter another contest, ever.

Why is that? I am not sure I know, really.

But is that bad?

I have been thinking all this time, kind of in the back of my mind, that it was bad. But then I really started to think about it recently. I was watching the HBO show, "Treme" the other day, a show about New Orleans. I love that show, I love the character's passion for their town, for the music, for their History. One of the musician characters made a comment to high school kids, about how you listen until you can simply feel it. He was saying, to paraphrase, that these beloved Jazz musicians are simply spilling poetry from their instruments and you simply need to close your eyes and "listen" to understand what they are saying.

And that clicked with me. That was what I was saying. NOT to play other's music, but to learn your own, to play your own. You can never only play your own, if you've heard music before. But now I think maybe my stupid, my own insipid way, is slower (it's taken years that way) but there is a kind of logic to it.

As for Treme (brief aside here) I have to say the carryovers from the show The Wire, have continued to be brilliant and entertain: Wendell Pierce, Clarke Peters. Not sure if there are more. And not to mention all the real professionals included in this show, peppered here and there.

As for newcomers, Lucia Micarelli, what's to say? I'm in love? What a talent!

More seasoned actors Steve Zahn, I've never liked him more. I like his exuberance, even his blind foolishness at times. But his passion for music wins me over every time. As do all the characters, those on the side of art and music, except for the criminals, drug addicts and sleazes of which there are a few anyway.

OK, okay, now back to our regularly scheduled show....

My heroes of music have never inspired me to mimic their rifts, but to listen to them talk, to try to understand how they view their Art. Eric Clapton, Adrian Belew, Robert Fripp and others. You could argue, "Well, you're not a professional guitar player are you?" No, you're right. I liked keyboards too and I'm not a professional pianist or keyboardist either. To become a pro, you do need to move quickly, learning the masters is the way, I'm sure. But I think I'm trying to get at something else here.

The same goes for my writing, in a different way. I started reading young, because no one would read me the comics in the newspaper until they were done reading the entire stupid newspaper on Sundays. I read voraciously (mostly because I was grounded so much as a kid). I always found writing fairly easy. I was probably a writer from birth, predisposed to it and only needed to be taught the mechanics of my particular language.

Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA

I got a B.A. in Psychology from a PNW University, Western Washington University. A great campus, my favorite in Washington state. Someone asked my while in college, why a Psych degree? I said, because I want to be a writer. She said, "me too, but I'm getting a Fine Arts degree." I said, "Will that works too, but it's heavy on the mechanics of writing and I wanted to learn the mechanics of Human Beings.

She thought for a moment and said, "Wow, that really makes sense to me, maybe I should switch my major?" I freaked as I didn't want her parents coming after me with shotguns and said, "No, we need all kinds, so I would stay with your major, that may be what you need. I just have different concerns. And we can still both be good, well read, successful writers." She went off happy.

Later, as I was graduating, someone asked if I was going to go for a Masters Degree. I said no. I felt that at that point, I could either become a writer, and artist, or I never would.

Twenty-five years later, I'm still hacking away at it. I'm not saying you shouldn't follow the Masters, that is a good way to go. I'm saying that for me, for some reason, I couldn't so much do that, as find my own path. My son was much like that also, frustrating when you are trying to teach him math in grade school but he has to plot out things that were settled a hundred or thousand years ago. It was slow for him, but now he is so far beyond me in math and physics I will never catch up to him. So there is some value, but for people with brains and minds that work in a certain way. Maybe.

Two years ago, I got really serious about my writing again; mostly because my kids are grown and now out  of the house. And I find that I have gotten much better over the years, without working full time on it. I'm sure I would have been far better now had I been actively working at it, but it gives hope to those who thought they could never make it. If you only at some point, stop, shift gears and go for it. Hope, is good. But it's nothing like focus, determination and doing it your own way. Listen to those who know, don't waste time you don't have to, find short cuts when you need to. But get there. You can do it. I can do it.

And, since now I have the luxury to do what I will....

I am.

Art - The Barnes Foundation

Now, I am not an artist. Though I like to think of myself as one, as a writer. I wish I could be a painter, but I don't have the patience. I'd like to think that at some point, I would be considered an artist in at least some of my writings, some day, before I die. But a true artist, or "Artiste" as I like to say, takes a genius amount of talent, effort, skill and something almost (or truly) spiritual in its creations.

If you consider yourself an artist, if you are an American, or not, but especially so, if you are, then you really should know about The Barnes Foundation collection of art, located in Merion, Pennsylvania.

From the home page of The Barnes Foundation:

"The Barnes Foundation houses one of the finest collections of nineteenth and twentieth-century French painting in the world. An extraordinary number of masterpieces by Renoir, Cézanne and Matisse provide a depth of work by these artists unavailable elsewhere. Established as an educational institution the Barnes carries out its mission teaching classes in its galleries and Arboretum. The Barnes welcomes visitors and students throughout the year."

Alfred Barnes was a Doctor who invented a replacement to the Silver nitrate eye drops for newborns they used to put in every baby's eyes to save them from venereal disease. He made a fortune with it. A friend then turned him on to art and the rest, dear friends, is history. And an incredible history it is.

From Dr. Barnes's Last Will and Testament (as distinct from the Barnes Foundation's Indenture of Trust) was limited to:

• reiterating that the Collection was given to the Foundation prior to his death;
• bequeathing the real property (i.e., land and buildings) in Merion, as well as Dr. Barnes's country property known as Ker-Feal to the Foundation (with express directions that Ker-Feal be used as a "living museum" in perpetuity by the Foundation); and
• giving the residue of his estate to his wife Laura.

Dr. Barnes pretty much hated "Society", the rich and the politicians who see art as some commodity. To get a feel for how Dr. Barnes saw things, he had said:

• "Philadelphia is a depressing intellectual slum."
• "The main function of the museum has been to serve as a pedestal upon which a clique of socialites pose as patrons of the arts."
• "The Philadelphia Museum of Art is a house of artistic and intellectual prostitution."

When he first opened his art up to viewing, the professional art critics slammed him into the ground. Almost viciously. After that, if he got a letter saying, "I'm an art critic for a NY newspaper, I'd like to come see the art." He would write back, "No", and have his dog, Fidele, sign it. But if someone wrote saying, "I'm a plumber and I would like to come see the art." He would say, "Yes."

When asked how much the collection is worth, a custodian of the collection couldn't even put a price on it. In looking at art (Cézanne's, Van Gogh, Matisse's) at Sotherby's, this custodian just dismissed most of the pieces as not worthy to be in the Foundation's collection.

Henri Matisse, said that, "The Barnes Foundation is the only sane place to see art in America."

If you ever feel like traveling to see art, go see the Barnes Collection. The number and quality of the pieces, even compared to the Louvre, or the NY Metropolitan Museum of the Arts, or any others, cannot in may ways, compare.

If you want to know more about The Barnes Foundation collection, see The Art of the Steal, a very interesting documentary. See also, Article

Defining the undefinable, winning the unwinnable

Ever tried to define, what cannot be defined?
Ever tried to win an argument and can't be won?

How in the world does one do those things?

My answer to this typically, has been that you need to go into another medium. First you have to verify that you have a clear path, clear and appropriate words and logic.

In using words, try instead using something non-verbal. Or non-spoken, such as song or even, just melody.

Perhaps, visuals would be better. When you are trying to explain something in physics and you hit a wall, try going into a metaphor, then pull back once again, into the hard science lexicon. Sometimes you just need to get someone in the general realm of what you are trying to show them, in order for them to see, what you are saying.

Things go by context, in general. Ever seen someone in a new location, and not recognized them, because you've never seen them outside, say, your dentist office? If they walked up and said, hi, I'm your dentist, you'd recognize them immediately. But if you stand off to the side and see them, you wonder, where do I know them from? You just need a small clue, and bang, you have their identity nailed down.

What IS the purpose of Art? The visual, the musical, or other forms. I think it is exactly that at times, to define the undefinable.

Consider Robert M. Pirsig's Classical and Romantic dichotomy from his Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, a book that has affected probably, millions over the years since its original 1974 publish date. I have taken that book on motorcycle rides several times, reading it to completion before returning home a few days later. Its a journey into your mind and life through that of a very interesting character, based upon Pirsig's own life.

When ever I run into a topic I have trouble defining or explaining to someone, I try to find a quantifiable separation in the idiom, or the topic, genre, or what have you, at the time. Like the classical vs romantic notion, or specific and general which is a great one. I find that many disagreements seem to spawn from one person taking one orientation and another, taking an opposing orientation, without either realizing it.

Have you ever been in an argument with someone, only to find, perhaps hours or days later, that you were both arguing on the same side of some point or another? Frustrating, yes? But, hopefully, perhaps, you both did learn something out if it and so it wasn't a total waste of time.

I took a Logic class during my University days and my Professor said he was going to teach us something we'd find very useful and cathartic; wherein, we would never have to lose certain arguments, ever again. And he was right.

He asked if we had ever lost an argument with someone, and not a bickering fight, but a discussion, where each party takes an opposing view and both submit their points of view until a rational meeting of the minds is achieved, and although you KNEW you were right, you just couldn't see where you lost your case along the way?

I had that happen with my mother so many times I can't count, and I never could figure out how she could be so wrong, but I couldn't convince her of it, nor could I see where I had failed in winning a winning argument.

The Professor's explanation was that somewhere along the line, the other person had simply switched or jumped the forms of logic they were using, and therefore, it became an unwinnable argument for you; since basically, you were arguing against well, insanity.

Once you realize that can happen, the next time you had an argument with that person, and they tried it again, through their lack of understanding, when they jumped the forms of logic they were using, you simply need to have them back up and point that out to them. Once they see the mistake, you can literally watch their argument crumble before their eyes. And you walk away, the winner, with your argument being fully supported and rational.

Of course, you have to start with a rational argument to begin with, otherwise, you have two insane people arguing over an unwinnable point and you still won't win that argument.

My point in all this is, when you have trouble defining the undefinable, or you cannot win, the winable, you need to pay attention to what is going on. Sometimes, you have to either switch your tact, or see where the inconsistency is. Then, you should be able to find a way to your goal.

Just remember that "winning" an argument, is not a goal one should really bother about. So much of the troubles in life are about just that, competition in areas where there should be no actual competition, but a team effort at finding the "truth" in an argument. Something positive for both or all involved, for that is the only truly important element in communication.

Sometimes, we forget that, and then everyone is the loser.