Comments on: ‘The artist is the man who has nothing to say’

By: Pete Sheehy

Pete Sheehy — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:10:23 +0000

[...](is the) link of Glenn Danzig getting punched in the face [...]

By: bark » The tank is dry.

bark » The tank is dry. — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:03:28 +0000

[...] I really don’t have anything to say this week. Or maybe I’ve just been inspired by Shawn’s post. Regardless, all I have to share are the [...]

By: Shawn Vestal

Shawn Vestal — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 23:27:07 +0000

i love that wilde line, and particularly so in this context…

By: Asa Maria

Asa Maria — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:54:36 +0000

I’m going to steal your line “It’s like criticizing horses for not being cows.”
Great post Shawn and I love that video. I think I might often return to this post to see it again, because I’m too lazy to look it up on YouTube for myself. Does anybody know what piece of music that is?

By: Terrance Owens

Terrance Owens — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:19:14 +0000

I think Dan’s point that I agreed with was that there is ideas in art but they aren’t there to relay information or to incite some kind of strategy rather they are there to “inspire some kind of exploration.” And we were discussing whether that should be considered “useful.”

By: TJ Fuller

TJ Fuller — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:33:17 +0000

I think there is no such thing as idea-less writing. They will be there. They just might not be what you want them to be. So you can manipulate them to make your point (but if you’re doing that as a fiction or poetry writer, I’d rather have you write an essay.)

Zadie Smith wrote an interesting response to Shields’ book, but it has since been removed from the world wide web. Or at least I can’t find it.

By: Shawn Vestal

Shawn Vestal — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:22:53 +0000

I lean heavily toward Banville, obviously, but would not go so far as to say I don’t want any ideas at all. I just want them embedded, not in the forefront. I want to experience them, not think them. if that makes any sense.

By: Terrance Owens

Terrance Owens — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:46:11 +0000

I agree with that but I think he not only feels emotion but tries to capture it as well. I think there is a difference there.

And when I say it is useful I mean it is as useful to us as a stick is to pre-tool using neanderthals.

But I think its use will be considered “applicable” one day.

Yes people who write polemics are trying to be applicable and that is why they fail, and why I agree with you on that, because in their search to be useful they trade emotional transport for informational transport. And then art fails to be art.

By: Dan J. Vice

Dan J. Vice — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:31:54 +0000

It does have that ability, but the lasting memory of the anguish of the Spanish Civil War has had, if the rest of the century is any indication, no effect on human behavior. It’s useful for understanding, but it’s not useful in a way that’s applicable, which is what people who write polemics ARE trying to be.

I guess my point is that Picasso isn’t trying to make a statement about the war, or about anguish. He just feels anguish.

By: Terrance Owens

Terrance Owens — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:24:42 +0000

Sure, good art isn’t a hammer and I know defining the word “practical” would be something we should do here but art captures the emotion of a time. There would be no lasting memory of the anguish of Spain’s Civil War if “Guernica” didn’t capture it. Sure there is video footage and pictures and texts but they just relay facts about an experience, sensory data, not the emotion behind it all. And if they do begin to relay the emotion they become art themselves. I think this ability that art has, to transport experience, makes it extremely useful.