I’m listening to “One Song Glory,” from the motion picture version of Rent filmed in 2005. And I’m thinking about what Douglas Adams said—about how “the idea of art kills creativity.”
Last year I was fortunate enough to see a performance of Rent at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. And don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed it very much. I have always loved live theater, and any chance I have to see a production makes me feel fortunate indeed. But while the actors all looked the part and sounded the part, I found myself lacking what is most important to me when I am experiencing a piece of storytelling: feeling. I didn’t feel inspired by the end of it. I didn’t feel sad when the characters went through hardships. And I honestly didn’t think the actors were feeling it, either. To me, it just seemed like they were looking pretty and saying their lines. Which works up to a point.
Of course, the truth could easily be that I attended on an off night. As someone who has done theater themselves in the past, I know firsthand that there’s always at least one performance where nothing feels right to anyone, let alone the audience.
But listening to Adam Pascal’s powerful rendition of “One Song Glory” got me thinking about that experience at the theater: about how all the characters looked the part, and sounded the part, but didn’t make me feel the part. It got me thinking about poetry classes, and how all the “good” poetry was poetry I didn’t understand. It got me thinking about stuffy, uptight, inner circles of people who say this is art and that is art, and while they can explain to me the “why,” they cannot make me feel it.
It got me thinking about the idea of “art,” and how it inevitably kills creativity.
Especially with the rise of the internet, it has become easier to see over the years: when a large group of people has passion for the same thing, “others” immediately follow. People who “aren’t doing it correctly,” or people who “aren’t passionate enough” about the subject, or people who “aren’t doing it the way I like it, so it’s wrong.” In other words, when people get together, power structures immediately follow. Standards are put in place by the few who have found themselves at the top, and everyone else is beneath them.
Most “art” has, unfortunately, become something high-brow—something classist and unattainable to the average schmo. But it shouldn’t be. Art, to me, has always been about human communication. About emotions, and connection. Art is something that should make its audience feel. And if it doesn’t, then it’s not doing its job.
But the thing we have often discussed in Nocturnal Mind is that art is highly subjective: what I see / hear / feel when I experience a piece of art might be different from what you see / hear / feel. Which is part of the reason why putting standards and instructions on it will inevitably kill it. What one person understands, and I don’t, should not be disregarded as art—but neither should something that’s so simple everyone can understand it. Art should be enjoyed by all, not gate-kept by the few. Art should not be something that has a certain look or sound to it.
Because that’s how you end up with something that just looks or sounds the part, but ultimately means nothing in the long run.
Night Owls, what piece of art do you find overrated by inner circles? What is underrated? What artist / artwork do you personally think is a genius / masterpiece?
