"Barrett's connection to the old papers was becoming more than simply technical. It was emotional. He detected life in them. He once found the imprint of a person's thumb on a page in a Renaissance book. 'Maybe the papermaker was rushing to fill an order, and grabbed the corner too firmly,' he said. 'To me, that fingerprint marked the sheet with a humanity of the person who made it. I could feel his presence.'James Galvin, a poet who teaches at the Iowa Writer's Workshop, occasionally feels the need to send his students a wake-up call. When this happens, Galvin calls Barrett...and asks him to send over one sheet of paper per student. 'I describe the paper to the students,' Galvin says, 'and I talk about the care, knowledge and aesthetic wisdom that went into making it. Then I tell them to go home and write something on it that makes it more interesting than it is when it's blank.'"-Mark Levine, from Cellulose Hero, New York Times Magazine
There is such a love for process, history, and the sanctity of material in this article. It was written without cynicism and venerates the handmade object as a layered and vital object in our history. It asks, where is the future of the historical handmade paper headed, and who is helping it survive? The question is as essential as asking what is the future of the book? Is it becoming an obsolete object that will be a luxury item in a digitized age?
The music industry faced a similar conundrum as their product became digital and it was an industry in decline for some time. Publishers face the same crisis as they are being written (pardon the pun) out of the equation when it comes to getting books, or words, into readers' hands. The newspaper, phone, and photography worlds have all had to make massive shifts in their business models to remain relevant. Who buys a dictionary anymore or writes a letter on paper? The postal industry is in its death throes due to technology's steady march. Jonathan Franzen wrote:
"The ultimate goal of technology, the telos in the techne, is to replace a natural world that's indifferent to our wishes - a world of hurricanes and hardships, and breakable hearts, a world of resistance - with a world so responsive to our wishes as to be, effectively, a mere extension of ourselves."
What are we sacrificing to have the objects we love: books, pictures, letters, music, and communication instantly attainable but without any concrete physical presence? Can we afford to be cynical about embracing handmade objects no matter what their provenance or worth? Perhaps I am preaching to the choir, or maybe not. Cynicism towards the mainstream craft world, the purveyors of paint your own pottery, the Etsy crowd, and the Michaels Craft world should perhaps be replaced with sincerity and approval. I'm just making an argument, here, and perhaps that is a portion of what we do here in Graduate School, argue over the fine points.
VS.
Thanks for reading and have a good week.
2 comments:
Thank you Aaron for your writing
Hey Aaron, great post as usual!
I've been mulling it over this past week, and slowly some different threads have started to coalesce around your question. I have also been reading a number of Arts Advocacy blogs, and have come to realize that its not just particular artforms that are under threat, but creativity and curiosity themselves.
From this perspective I'm not sure we can afford the cynicism. I think I'd rather embrace the good AND the bad than see just a few surviving manifestations of the human creative spirit. Of course that's not in the financial interests of the establishment arts industry who stake their claim on some trumped up version of elitism. So I'm not sure how much sympathy there is going to be from that corner of the arts world.
But the question I would ask these arbiters of cultural significance is why the audience for the Fine Arts seems to be shrinking, and why the galleries end up being more exclusive to cash rich, taste poor bank accounts. We have sold ourselves on the game of status and celebrity, and this has put us at the mercy of the new class of patrons. Are we cutting our own throats by being so elitist? Is the funding for the Arts diminishing in direct proportion to the loss of a mainstream audience? Is the larger public alienated from most art, and if so, why should we expect their help in sustaining art practices?
Of course this doesn't paint the whole picture, but cynicism does lay a heavy hand on amateur and unsanctioned arts. And the favor is returned by an audience that is being either ignored, mocked, or sometimes even vilified. I just don't think these attitudes can sustain the arts for ever.
I'm not suggesting that the arts go on a complete mission of pandering to the lowest common denominator, but I think its much more in our interest to support creativity itself than to focus on only a narrow expression. I think its much more in our interest to support any creativity than to endorse just the favorite tribe of practitioners. The question is whether we can find some agreeable middle ground...
Think of it as being the project of education. In teaching people about their native creativity it is important to nurture and encourage. Sometimes harsh words will spur growth, but not in all cases, and not with every student. I'm not suggesting that the U drop its mission of honing talent, but I'm suggesting that it might suit us to practice a little forbearance and tolerance of amateur practitioners. The sneer we put on is not very flattering to ourselves or to the public.
Those are my thoughts at least! Thanks again for the thought provoking post!
Post a Comment