Prevalent Problem of Today’s Artists: Initial Specialization

Perhaps I am not qualified to have an opinion in this area- thus I will let that statement be my credentials. There is a short story I read recently called ‘The Circle of Elite Wizards’ which accounts for a young and learning youth who tries to master the higher and complex spells prior to the more easy and mundane magic. He is repeatedly told by his master that he must first learn ‘red’ and ‘blue’ magic before he can even start to work on ‘purple’ magic. Although he is taught there to be a hierarchy to magic, he nevertheless goes for his own desire first and right away without caring to look into the others. When he comes across ‘black’ magic, he is enthralled and makes it his soul focus. In four years he manages to craft a kind of ‘black’ magic which is entirely creative; is it solely his own and strange to the others. He manages to use this to save the village from a peculiar villain, almost as strange as himself (who is seemingly invulnerable to all magic). The youth perishes in the battle and takes the villain with him and so the story is left with an open end, ripe for various interpretations.

The interpretation I want to suggest is one concerning art: that although there is a primacy for creativity in the initial (if not fascist) specialization to one aspect of art over all others, I think in the end is proves to be a weak creativity. In other words, it is truly and honestly creative, but it is a kind of creativity which would have likely been able to be possessed later, within the proper channels. What am I talking about here? It is like the young painter who shuns learning painting in the ‘proper’ way so they can devote more time to their specialization. What is specialization to mean here? For the artist themselves, they will dub it ‘good art’ or that small branch or branches of art which they resonate with the most. This is the greatest danger for the artist, for although it is proven to be a sound method to value and cherish what we love best through imitation and that imitating the greats is a path in itself to greatness; such a path can be just as damaging in its limitations.

Heidegger speaks of the openness of possibility containing restrictions underneath. What kind of restrictions? The kind which occur when we choose left, that we can then no longer choose right (and vice versa if we walk back and change our minds). If we specialize too soon or remain too focused, we can fail to pick up the general skills which lie outside our field of vision. As the young mage is unable to partake in red or blue but remains wanting purple; and furthermore with black (as the mixture of all colors) so too specialization can prove to be the most fatal choice to an artist if it is chosen too soon.

Is this all too abstract? Then let me throw off the curtain: my charge is to one Matthew Wilkinson in his endeavors for artistry. By holding opinions of art-connoisseury and mixing them with art-creation, you are in danger of limiting your artistry. What we hold ‘below’ us is similar to what we ‘dislike’ and what we hold ‘apex’ is similar to what we ‘want to be like’. This is all good and well within and alone to the realm of being a connoisseur, but it MUST be separated from the much different realm of art-creation! Just like having contempt for a shit book can sometimes keep us from understanding something ‘shitty’ and perhaps important about the world; so to our art must be eclectic. But ecleticity in art-connoisseury is much different than ecleticity in art-creation.

We do not mean you have to read shit books in order to write good ones; but you should be able to craft the forms of the ‘below’ books in order to reach the heights of the ‘apex’ kinds. What am I talking about? Clearly: we can like and dislike action movies, that’s one thing, but to actively decide that they are ‘below’ our movie exploits and thus are not worth our-making-them (as a path to keep us from making lousy movies) is a fallacy. You must separate your opinions of art from your skills of art-creation. In other words, if making action movies IS really ‘below’ the focus you desire to have, then I think you must (or should/ought) PROVE it to be so by MASTERING the lower craft to ensure more skill in the higher. This is not a quibble about art opinions, but about art-creation.

Question: is it possible to craft and perfect action movie (in art-creation) and still hold a distain opinion for action movies themselves (in art-connoisseury)? I think this question is actively and successfully avoided by most artists. Only the more complex artist could accomplish this ‘paradox’ (even though it is not really a paradox at all but a kind of wisdom) by holding both these opposing ideas simultaneously.

Objection: would not the work on an action movie prove to soil the effort and skill of someone who wants to work on something else? Are there not enough people already doing this sort of easy stuff? Is it really hierarchical at all, are not all artists simply choosing to do what they want, outside and beyond any intellectual rules or systems of sense? Should we not simply do what we feel invigorated to do, instead of adhering to someone else’s commands for artistry and excellence artful mind?

Response: the simple and distain-worthy art is there to be conquered not avoided. What do you gain from fleeing form it? You DO gain much within the realm of art-connoisseury, this is obvious, but are you merely an art connoisseur? Are you not more than this, but a fellow creator? What respect would you have if a youngster who wanted to imitated you said ‘I only do, read and work on your style and no one else’s.’ Would that not be horrible? When it comes to opinion it is a complement (art-connoisseury) but when it came to skills would it not be suicide (art-creation)?

Artists shoot themselves in the foot by initially specializing in their higher art-forms and fail to see how this keeps them forever-young, forever unable to do anything with power. They will remain weak in their creativity, even if their creativity is something interesting. This time of learning we all find ourselves in, in our current and young age, should not be used for specialization and personal exploration; rather, it should be used for mastering up the ‘lower’ and easier forms of art so as to benefit the great and higher aims we go for.

Milton gave himself the challenge to work with and master all the other forms of poetry before Epic. Why? Because this was his way of showing the epic poem to be the greatest of all poems. Is it? It does not have to be, perhaps someone else might master all other forms of poetry and then finish with the sonnet. This is not an objective system, but a kind of wise exploration of one’s field of study. Let the connoisseurs shun what they shun, they have only their opinions; the artist needs to be rise above such stuff if they are to truly break out of the art-conniosseury realm and break into the art-creation realm.

What do you think Matt, this charge is aimed at you?