Random
WHORES AND LIARS
just starting a literary magazine, here in this back alley
A few weeks ago I was at a panel discussion where the TV writer/showrunner David Milch (NYPD Blue, Deadwood, the upcoming Luck), known for his powerful intellect and oratorical abilities, talked for a bit about his philosophy of how an artist (in his case, a TV showrunner) should go about striving to get his art into the world (i.e. get his show on the air). He said you have to lie like hell.
He said, “One synonym for passion is a willingness to lie… Don’t confuse artistic passion with passion for truth-telling, and don’t strive for purity of intention. It does not exist in our species.” He said, “If a network executive tells me, ‘We can’t move forward without a script,’ I tell him, ‘You don’t have the script?? Oh, no–I’m humiliated. I can’t believe this. I’ll have it sent over in two hours.’ And then I just don’t send it to ’em.” He went on, encouraging everyone to lie whenever and however necessary to get your project done the way you want it. (Perhaps this may have something to do with the cost overruns that allegedly prompted HBO executives to cancel Deadwood way too soon, but that’s another story.) And let lowly PAs get blamed and fired for your crimes (i.e. not sending the script) if necessary. Because it’s all in the service of getting the show made.
There’s a difference between what we think of as “integrity” and what we think of as “artistic integrity.” And sometimes the two are in direct conflict. I’ve heard actresses in L.A. complain bitterly about other actresses who got a part, suggesting that it was because of sexual favors provided, etc… you know the cliche. The implication of the complaint is that the complainer would never do such a thing. But my feeling is, say Actress X wants to practice her art by performing a certain role, and to do that, she needs to get approved by a gatekeeper–say, the director. She can get the approval in exchange for sexual favors. She believes that she’s the best actress for the role, and in an ideal world, her talent alone would get her cast. But she knows the world isn’t an ideal one, and she can’t trust the vagaries of politics and personal taste. So she fucks the director, which drastically minimizes those uncertainties. Okay–I’m not going to judge.
While I don’t deny the unfairness of this in a larger context–it’s quite likely she wasn’t the best actress for the role, and more talented actresses were denied a shot at the part–I don’t lose respect for the actress herself. She was willing to go to great lengths for the opportunity to practice her art. …Now, I get that in many cases we may be talking about a talent-challenged performer trying to get a role in Marmaduke 2 or some such thing; what I’m saying is that I don’t find the transaction inherently inconsistent with the concept of “artistic integrity” on the part of the actress. (The person in the scenario for whom I lose respect is the director, who’s potentially sabotaging his own work in order to get laid.)
This topic reminds me of someone I met a few months ago whose father was a very successful writer, much admired in HTML Giant circles. She identified herself as a writer, too, and said she was working on a novel. She also said she was trying to get agent for the novel, but she was undertaking the task on her own, declining the opportunity to have her father’s agent represent the book, which the agent would have done, guaranteed. My thought was: This person isn’t truly serious about being a writer. If she really believed passionately in her book, she’d seize every opportunity to get it out there that came within her grasp, whatever the provenance of that opportunity.
Peter Matthiessen started The Paris Review with CIA seed money. He wanted to create a magazine that would publish the talented young writers he knew (including himself), and he got the funding for it from an agency–his employer–engaging in radical and experimental mind control/interrogation programs. He’s said that he regrets this. I’m cool with it, though–I respect it. He wanted to create and distribute literature and in the context of his life/position at the time, that was the way to do it. And what came of it? One of the most influential and important literary magazines of the century.
The world is not designed to make it easy for you to create and distribute your writing. You say what you have to say and do what you have to do. And maybe what you’re willing to say and do depends on how serious you are about being an artist. I’m not saying you should be a whore or a liar–I’m saying don’t confuse personal integrity with artistic integrity. They’re both important, but they’re not the same thing at all. And sometimes they smash into each other and one gets bloody.
(photo by Didier Hubert)
Tags: David Milch, lying, peter matthiessen
i like her heels (hooker heels?).
i like her heels (hooker heels?).
And maybe being a good person is more important than being a successful artist. And maybe the publishing part is never as important as the writing part.
You seemed to have confused artistic seriousness with personal ambition. Why not be a banker? There’s more money in that.
And maybe being a good person is more important than being a successful artist. And maybe the publishing part is never as important as the writing part.
You seemed to have confused artistic seriousness with personal ambition. Why not be a banker? There’s more money in that.
1. He said “artistic integrity,” not “artistic seriousness.” Being “serious about being an artist” is not the same thing as “artistic seriousness.”
2. He didn’t say anything about money
3. How does one go about “being a good person”?
4. What is a “successful artist”?
1. He said “artistic integrity,” not “artistic seriousness.” Being “serious about being an artist” is not the same thing as “artistic seriousness.”
2. He didn’t say anything about money
3. How does one go about “being a good person”?
4. What is a “successful artist”?
*CORRECTION*
2. He didn’t say anything about money vis-a-vis personal ambition
*CORRECTION*
2. He didn’t say anything about money vis-a-vis personal ambition
Milch is very, very smart. He has also been in the business for thirty years. Not a little of integrity to be found, artistic or persona, in Hollywood. He obviously has no respect for the money dudes, so he is saying in his typical I like to go to the track and I used to be a genius heroin addict fashion, fuck em to get your vision out there. What else is new?
Fucking someone for a job is never okay, in any business. It secures nothing, ever. Ask any actor with a long-term career.
This is a disturbing essay. The woman who refuses her father’s agent is wise. She knows it would be the equivalent of fucking the director for a job. There are subtle lines one does not cross.
Milch is speaking from an old dude’s perch, Mathiessen’s decision from a youthful subversive flight of fancy.
I hope you are very young, because otherwise there is no excuse for so little wisdom.
Milch is very, very smart. He has also been in the business for thirty years. Not a little of integrity to be found, artistic or persona, in Hollywood. He obviously has no respect for the money dudes, so he is saying in his typical I like to go to the track and I used to be a genius heroin addict fashion, fuck em to get your vision out there. What else is new?
Fucking someone for a job is never okay, in any business. It secures nothing, ever. Ask any actor with a long-term career.
This is a disturbing essay. The woman who refuses her father’s agent is wise. She knows it would be the equivalent of fucking the director for a job. There are subtle lines one does not cross.
Milch is speaking from an old dude’s perch, Mathiessen’s decision from a youthful subversive flight of fancy.
I hope you are very young, because otherwise there is no excuse for so little wisdom.
1. “And maybe what you’re willing to say and do depends on how serious you are about being an artist.”
2. You’re right, he didn’t. I’m inferring. On second thought, it probably should have been discussed (by Antosca, I mean).
3. In this context, I guess we can (loosely, broadly) define being a good person as maintaining one’s own personal integrity. The author is trying to make the argument that for the “true” (serious) artist personal integrity comes second to artistic integrity. That lying and “whoring” are acceptable, even admirable, in the service of art. I profoundly disagree.
4. We all have our own models of artistic success; I was adopting the author’s (success in getting the role, success in getting the book published, etc.)
1. “And maybe what you’re willing to say and do depends on how serious you are about being an artist.”
2. You’re right, he didn’t. I’m inferring. On second thought, it probably should have been discussed (by Antosca, I mean).
3. In this context, I guess we can (loosely, broadly) define being a good person as maintaining one’s own personal integrity. The author is trying to make the argument that for the “true” (serious) artist personal integrity comes second to artistic integrity. That lying and “whoring” are acceptable, even admirable, in the service of art. I profoundly disagree.
4. We all have our own models of artistic success; I was adopting the author’s (success in getting the role, success in getting the book published, etc.)
what if you’re already a liar and a whore?
what if you’re already a liar and a whore?
1. Once again: “how serious you are about being an artist” does not equal “artistic seriousness.” The first is “how bad you want it, or something,” while the latter is a term pretentious people use to separate the wheat from the chaff, that is, to dismiss anything that they think isn’t “this” or “that” enough, and then to pretend that is objectively true and that the person involved should feel bad, or lesser than, for having failed to predict the standards of the critic who would come along later and decide, for good, how serious the artist was or not
2. ….
3. One’s personal integrity will vary wildly depending on the person; no, that’s not quite what he wrote, he actually went to great lengths to prevent you from misunderstanding him in the manner you describe, but alas.
4. You are right that success means different things to different people. But the vast majority of artists would like at least 1 person to look at their art, and probably a lot more than that, ideally. As far as I’m concerned, until they get posthumously “discovered” and “published,” or something, the person you seem to envision, who “just doesn’t care about that publishing crap, but is all about The Art, man,” that person has a hobby.
1. Once again: “how serious you are about being an artist” does not equal “artistic seriousness.” The first is “how bad you want it, or something,” while the latter is a term pretentious people use to separate the wheat from the chaff, that is, to dismiss anything that they think isn’t “this” or “that” enough, and then to pretend that is objectively true and that the person involved should feel bad, or lesser than, for having failed to predict the standards of the critic who would come along later and decide, for good, how serious the artist was or not
2. ….
3. One’s personal integrity will vary wildly depending on the person; no, that’s not quite what he wrote, he actually went to great lengths to prevent you from misunderstanding him in the manner you describe, but alas.
4. You are right that success means different things to different people. But the vast majority of artists would like at least 1 person to look at their art, and probably a lot more than that, ideally. As far as I’m concerned, until they get posthumously “discovered” and “published,” or something, the person you seem to envision, who “just doesn’t care about that publishing crap, but is all about The Art, man,” that person has a hobby.
1. I think we can (loosely, broadly, since, once again, we are speaking in very loose and broad [one might even say meaningless] terms here ) define a serious artist as someone who is serious about their art. No one said anything about critics.
3. Since I am so dense (and pretentious), could you kindly elucidate how I misunderstood the author? It seems to me that he is saying, quite unequivocally, that it’s okay to compromise YOURSELF–to do things you might otherwise be ashamed of–as long as your artistic vision is pure.
4. I guess then, by your definition, Emily Dickinson, Vincent Van Gogh, et al. were hobbyists. There are lots of ways to get your art out there (especially in our modern internet world). Sucking dick doesn’t have to be one of them.
1. I think we can (loosely, broadly, since, once again, we are speaking in very loose and broad [one might even say meaningless] terms here ) define a serious artist as someone who is serious about their art. No one said anything about critics.
3. Since I am so dense (and pretentious), could you kindly elucidate how I misunderstood the author? It seems to me that he is saying, quite unequivocally, that it’s okay to compromise YOURSELF–to do things you might otherwise be ashamed of–as long as your artistic vision is pure.
4. I guess then, by your definition, Emily Dickinson, Vincent Van Gogh, et al. were hobbyists. There are lots of ways to get your art out there (especially in our modern internet world). Sucking dick doesn’t have to be one of them.
ALEXEI TOLSTOY WROTE SOME BOOK ABOUT STALIN SAYING “HE IS A GREAT GUY NICE MOUSTACHE WHOA WHAT A WARRIOR” ALL MADE UP STUFF AND HE WON A PRIZE FOR IT. THE BOOK WAS BASICALLY TRASH, BUT AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS WRITING A “CHILDREN’S NOVEL” SECRETLY FOR ADULTS TOO ABOUT A WOODEN DOLL THAT LIES A LOT TO GET AHEAD (LOOSELY “ADAPTED” FROM PINOCCHIO) AND ANYWAY TOLSTOY HAD A NICE LONG CAREER AND HE WON THREE STALIN PRIZES AND IN THE END HE WASN’T SLAUGHTERED LIKE HIS FELLOW TRAVELLER CONTEMPORARIES AND HE GOT HIS SUBVERSIVE BOOK (WHICH THE SOVIETS DIDN’T BEGIN TO CLUE IN ON UNTIL LONG AFTER IT WAS CANON, OVER 30 YEARS AFTER IT WAS WRITTEN–THEN THEY WERE FORCED TO SUPPRESS THE STUDY THAT RECOGNIZED IT AS SUBVERSIVE) INTO THE HANDS OF EVERY BOY AND GIRL IN RUSSIA.
YURI OLESHA WAS ONE OF THE FEW TO GET IT RIGHT AWAY. HE WAS LIKE “OH DAMN, I SEE WHAT HE’S DOING, BUT I’M NOT GOING TO TELL ANYONE. OH BABY.”
THE BEST TRICK NOW IS TO INTRODUCE INTERESTING/SUBVERSIVE WORK TO A MAINSTREAM WHO WOULD OTHERWISE JUST BE WATCHING JERSEY SHORE OR SOMETHING.
ALEXEI TOLSTOY WROTE SOME BOOK ABOUT STALIN SAYING “HE IS A GREAT GUY NICE MOUSTACHE WHOA WHAT A WARRIOR” ALL MADE UP STUFF AND HE WON A PRIZE FOR IT. THE BOOK WAS BASICALLY TRASH, BUT AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS WRITING A “CHILDREN’S NOVEL” SECRETLY FOR ADULTS TOO ABOUT A WOODEN DOLL THAT LIES A LOT TO GET AHEAD (LOOSELY “ADAPTED” FROM PINOCCHIO) AND ANYWAY TOLSTOY HAD A NICE LONG CAREER AND HE WON THREE STALIN PRIZES AND IN THE END HE WASN’T SLAUGHTERED LIKE HIS FELLOW TRAVELLER CONTEMPORARIES AND HE GOT HIS SUBVERSIVE BOOK (WHICH THE SOVIETS DIDN’T BEGIN TO CLUE IN ON UNTIL LONG AFTER IT WAS CANON, OVER 30 YEARS AFTER IT WAS WRITTEN–THEN THEY WERE FORCED TO SUPPRESS THE STUDY THAT RECOGNIZED IT AS SUBVERSIVE) INTO THE HANDS OF EVERY BOY AND GIRL IN RUSSIA.
YURI OLESHA WAS ONE OF THE FEW TO GET IT RIGHT AWAY. HE WAS LIKE “OH DAMN, I SEE WHAT HE’S DOING, BUT I’M NOT GOING TO TELL ANYONE. OH BABY.”
THE BEST TRICK NOW IS TO INTRODUCE INTERESTING/SUBVERSIVE WORK TO A MAINSTREAM WHO WOULD OTHERWISE JUST BE WATCHING JERSEY SHORE OR SOMETHING.
I noticed that Roxane used ‘whore’ as a synonym for ‘sex worker’ in that interview with Mather Schneider and then I saw this. Is ‘whore’ not a pejorative/derogatory word? I was under the impression that it was. Is okay to casually refer to sex workers as ‘whores’? It seems kinda fucked up to me.
I noticed that Roxane used ‘whore’ as a synonym for ‘sex worker’ in that interview with Mather Schneider and then I saw this. Is ‘whore’ not a pejorative/derogatory word? I was under the impression that it was. Is okay to casually refer to sex workers as ‘whores’? It seems kinda fucked up to me.
1. “Serious artist” does not equal “artistic seriousness.” By any terms, they are not the same thing, I’m sorry.
3. I doubt you are dense and I have no idea about your pretentiousness or lack thereof. I think the most important words to latch onto in this post are “inherently inconsistent”—these words hint that we are dealing with someone who would like his readers to reexamine their thoughts on the matter of “whoring,” in some fashion, in the interest of getting noticed/published/getting the role/etc. Writers often use the qualifier “not necessarily”—it’s the same concept. “Whoring” is not necessarily, not inherently, a “bad thing.” So, for a reader to skip over the doubt or uncertainty or ambiguity re: this issue as it manifests itself in various ways that the writer, Nick Antosca, freely supplies/cops to, then the reader will proceed toward a knee-jerk response to the post, IMHO.
4. Sucking dick is itself an artform.
1. “Serious artist” does not equal “artistic seriousness.” By any terms, they are not the same thing, I’m sorry.
3. I doubt you are dense and I have no idea about your pretentiousness or lack thereof. I think the most important words to latch onto in this post are “inherently inconsistent”—these words hint that we are dealing with someone who would like his readers to reexamine their thoughts on the matter of “whoring,” in some fashion, in the interest of getting noticed/published/getting the role/etc. Writers often use the qualifier “not necessarily”—it’s the same concept. “Whoring” is not necessarily, not inherently, a “bad thing.” So, for a reader to skip over the doubt or uncertainty or ambiguity re: this issue as it manifests itself in various ways that the writer, Nick Antosca, freely supplies/cops to, then the reader will proceed toward a knee-jerk response to the post, IMHO.
4. Sucking dick is itself an artform.
Whore has all kinds of meaning. It depends on the context.
are you worried about hurting a sex worker’s feelings with word choice? haha….
Whore has all kinds of meaning. It depends on the context.
are you worried about hurting a sex worker’s feelings with word choice? haha….
I am worried about feelings. I am worried about word choice.
I am worried about feelings. I am worried about word choice.
This is so wrong it’s not even funny. Seriously. It’s terribly easy to write something like “So she fucks the director, yadda yadda yadda” without actually being in that situation.
Put it this way: Nick, you have just written a novel which you are very proud of. You want to get it published. You are alone in a big office with the head of some giant publishing house. The exec is more that twice your age, outweighs you by one hundred pounds and he’s got a leer in his eye. He tells you that the only way you are going to get your book published is by letting him fuck you.
Do you let him? Do you take the time to ask him what your advance is going to be, or how much money they will put into promoting your book? Or what your rights are? How much of a cut you get for film rights? Will you ask him to keep this between the two of you, or will you just assume that he’ll tell everyone? Chances are, you won’t get the time to ask because, naturally, he has all of the power in this situation.
So you fuck him. Because you are an artist. And surely this proves that you are a serious writer.
This is so wrong it’s not even funny. Seriously. It’s terribly easy to write something like “So she fucks the director, yadda yadda yadda” without actually being in that situation.
Put it this way: Nick, you have just written a novel which you are very proud of. You want to get it published. You are alone in a big office with the head of some giant publishing house. The exec is more that twice your age, outweighs you by one hundred pounds and he’s got a leer in his eye. He tells you that the only way you are going to get your book published is by letting him fuck you.
Do you let him? Do you take the time to ask him what your advance is going to be, or how much money they will put into promoting your book? Or what your rights are? How much of a cut you get for film rights? Will you ask him to keep this between the two of you, or will you just assume that he’ll tell everyone? Chances are, you won’t get the time to ask because, naturally, he has all of the power in this situation.
So you fuck him. Because you are an artist. And surely this proves that you are a serious writer.
This is why I read HTML Giant
This is why I read HTML Giant
THEN YOU GO HOME AND NO ONE EVER CALLS YOU FROM THAT STUDIO AGAIN.
THEN YOU GO HOME AND NO ONE EVER CALLS YOU FROM THAT STUDIO AGAIN.
My point is that I can understand why someone would make such a choice, and it’s not a choice that inherently deserves censure. I added a sentence to the relevant paragraph in the post to make it clear that my point is as stated in the previous sentence, not intended to be explicit and uncomplicated encouragement of sleeping one’s way forward.
My point is that I can understand why someone would make such a choice, and it’s not a choice that inherently deserves censure. I added a sentence to the relevant paragraph in the post to make it clear that my point is as stated in the previous sentence, not intended to be explicit and uncomplicated encouragement of sleeping one’s way forward.
What I meant to say was this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcaVSTsYyOI
What I meant to say was this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcaVSTsYyOI
I like this quote by William Faulkner: “The writer’s only responsibility is to his art. He will be completely ruthless if he is a good one. He has a dream. It anguishes him so much that he can’t get rid of it. He has no peace until then. Everything goes by the board: honor, pride, decency, security, happiness, all, to get the book written. If a writer has to rob his mother, he will not hesitate; the “Ode on a Grecian Urn” is worth any number of old ladies.”
But were I the actress who could sleep with the director to get the part or the author’s daughter who could easily have her father’s agent represent her, I would refuse: I may beg, borrow, and steal to get the work done, but after that, I shall have faith in the work itself and if I don’t have any faith in the work, why bother? Is this too romantic of me? Probably, but I think a little romanticism can put a little much-needed spice in life at times.
I like this quote by William Faulkner: “The writer’s only responsibility is to his art. He will be completely ruthless if he is a good one. He has a dream. It anguishes him so much that he can’t get rid of it. He has no peace until then. Everything goes by the board: honor, pride, decency, security, happiness, all, to get the book written. If a writer has to rob his mother, he will not hesitate; the “Ode on a Grecian Urn” is worth any number of old ladies.”
But were I the actress who could sleep with the director to get the part or the author’s daughter who could easily have her father’s agent represent her, I would refuse: I may beg, borrow, and steal to get the work done, but after that, I shall have faith in the work itself and if I don’t have any faith in the work, why bother? Is this too romantic of me? Probably, but I think a little romanticism can put a little much-needed spice in life at times.
And I say this in the larger context of distinguishing the choices we make from a purely ethical standpoint and the choices we make from a more calculated position, where we have to consider what circumstances have to be in place for us to be able to produce and/or distribute the work that we create. (I use an actor as an example because they have it the toughest–they need permission from someone else, they have to get *cast,* before they can do their creative work.) An idealist might respond that ALL our choices, in every circumstance, should be made from a purely ethical point of view, and I understand that argument in principle, but I don’t agree with it. Life is too nuanced/too complicated. And I don’t believe that much of what we consider great art would exist if the creators hadn’t made decisions that were in the interest of their work rather than in the interest of adherence to black and white ethical guidelines.
And I say this in the larger context of distinguishing the choices we make from a purely ethical standpoint and the choices we make from a more calculated position, where we have to consider what circumstances have to be in place for us to be able to produce and/or distribute the work that we create. (I use an actor as an example because they have it the toughest–they need permission from someone else, they have to get *cast,* before they can do their creative work.) An idealist might respond that ALL our choices, in every circumstance, should be made from a purely ethical point of view, and I understand that argument in principle, but I don’t agree with it. Life is too nuanced/too complicated. And I don’t believe that much of what we consider great art would exist if the creators hadn’t made decisions that were in the interest of their work rather than in the interest of adherence to black and white ethical guidelines.
I don’t think the idea of ethics was what I had the problem with. It was really the acceptance of the way power is structured. I don’t have anything against the woman who would sleep with the director to get the role, either. I do, however, have something against the idea that it’s okay to condone the power structure that allows this to happen. (Just saying “it’s an imperfect world” is not enough.)
I don’t think the idea of ethics was what I had the problem with. It was really the acceptance of the way power is structured. I don’t have anything against the woman who would sleep with the director to get the role, either. I do, however, have something against the idea that it’s okay to condone the power structure that allows this to happen. (Just saying “it’s an imperfect world” is not enough.)
But the post isn’t about that–and as I said, the person worthy of condemnation and contempt in that power transaction is, of course, the director (making a bad ethical choice, of course, and also a bad artistic one by compromising his film for sex)–it’s about the distinction between artistic integrity and ethics, and the potential conflicts between them.
But the post isn’t about that–and as I said, the person worthy of condemnation and contempt in that power transaction is, of course, the director (making a bad ethical choice, of course, and also a bad artistic one by compromising his film for sex)–it’s about the distinction between artistic integrity and ethics, and the potential conflicts between them.
Thanks for clarifying. I get confused. I sort of got hung up on that one bit. I don’t know if I agree, but I see what you’re getting at.
Thanks for clarifying. I get confused. I sort of got hung up on that one bit. I don’t know if I agree, but I see what you’re getting at.
those are good heels.
those are good heels.
hey, um, tadd, if you want to do cross-promotion, or like, hang out with landon manucci who came to your issue launch party (you’re from artifice?), or [something else] um email me at stephen.dierks@gmail.com or something. at my link, you’ll see the magazine i’m about to do, pop serial, with tao lin, kendra grant malone, brandon scott gorrell, zachary german, miles ross, brittany wallace, jordan castro, joshua cohen, et al. et al.
hey, um, tadd, if you want to do cross-promotion, or like, hang out with landon manucci who came to your issue launch party (you’re from artifice?), or [something else] um email me at stephen.dierks@gmail.com or something. at my link, you’ll see the magazine i’m about to do, pop serial, with tao lin, kendra grant malone, brandon scott gorrell, zachary german, miles ross, brittany wallace, jordan castro, joshua cohen, et al. et al.
why is it funny to worry about hurting a sex workers feelings?
why is it funny to worry about hurting a sex workers feelings?
And this is why I largely don’t.
And this is why I largely don’t.
The question was in relation to a specific set of poems. You would have to read the book for the question to make more sense, I suppose. Anyway.
The question was in relation to a specific set of poems. You would have to read the book for the question to make more sense, I suppose. Anyway.
it’s not funny. my bad. i apologize.
it’s not funny. my bad. i apologize.
If this post sits so wrongly with you that you really derive nothing from reading it, then begone. However, you’ve responded at length and in detail above, so I thank you for the level of engagement. (That is a sincere thanks; not a needling or sarcastic one.)
If this post sits so wrongly with you that you really derive nothing from reading it, then begone. However, you’ve responded at length and in detail above, so I thank you for the level of engagement. (That is a sincere thanks; not a needling or sarcastic one.)
I don’t feel like I “derived nothing” from your piece. I found it provoking, in a certain way (which is why I responded). But I’m always confused when I come across attitudes like the one expressed in your piece, or by “Stephen” in the comments thread. They just seem so far removed from why I come to art, from why I want to be an artist (i.e. to be successful).
That said, I think what you said in the comments section–about “distinguishing [between] the choices we make from a purely ethical standpoint and the choices we make from a more calculated position”–is interesting and worth talking about. No doubt all of us are going to run into situations where we have to make certain choices, certain sacrifices, in regards to our art. Maybe we won’t have to sleep with an editor, but most likely we’ll be asked to cut a paragraph or two.
I guess it is up to everyone individually to draw their line in the sand.
I don’t feel like I “derived nothing” from your piece. I found it provoking, in a certain way (which is why I responded). But I’m always confused when I come across attitudes like the one expressed in your piece, or by “Stephen” in the comments thread. They just seem so far removed from why I come to art, from why I want to be an artist (i.e. to be successful).
That said, I think what you said in the comments section–about “distinguishing [between] the choices we make from a purely ethical standpoint and the choices we make from a more calculated position”–is interesting and worth talking about. No doubt all of us are going to run into situations where we have to make certain choices, certain sacrifices, in regards to our art. Maybe we won’t have to sleep with an editor, but most likely we’ll be asked to cut a paragraph or two.
I guess it is up to everyone individually to draw their line in the sand.
This actually makes a lot of sense to me. The “whore” thing is stretching it a bit but I get what it’s about. I would take my father’s agent in a second. I don’t care particularly how I get read as long as I’m read.
This actually makes a lot of sense to me. The “whore” thing is stretching it a bit but I get what it’s about. I would take my father’s agent in a second. I don’t care particularly how I get read as long as I’m read.
“I guess it is up to everyone individually to draw their line in the sand.”
I think there is definitely a pretty broad line between sucking dick and lying…
I don’t agree with Nick that there is a separation between personal and artistic integrity. It sounds like he’s trying to compromise his moral values (see Crime and Punishment). I think what Nick needs to reconsider is his understanding of success. If its only about publishing, then I think he needs to reconsider why he’s writing.
Keep in mind that many of the world’s greatest artists never saw any exposure (or success for that matter) in their life time— Emily Dickinson, Vincent Van Gogh, Herman Melville, to name a few.
While also consider that many artists deemed successful today have their art called into question constantly. Many enjoy the movies of Woody Allen and agree that he’s an interesting person, though not everyone agrees he’s making real art. Woody Allen is in fact a perfect example to consider when thinking about the relationship between art and integrity.
As an artist myself, I’ve honestly always had a morbid obsession with artists who never saw exposure until after they died. I think many do. When an artist dies for their craft, that’s how one knows it’s real and legitimate. I think this morbid obsession can go so far that many artists in fact take advantage to further their careers artificially (suicide is pretty popular in artistic circles).
I sympathize with Nick that it is hard to determine where to place the line. Which artists live on to influence future artists can only be determined in time, even after one passes on unfortunately. But, whenever I think of past artists that influence me, most that come to mind lived dedicated to integrity and their art proved it in some way.
Maybe the real question here is do you need integrity to make good art?
“I guess it is up to everyone individually to draw their line in the sand.”
I think there is definitely a pretty broad line between sucking dick and lying…
I don’t agree with Nick that there is a separation between personal and artistic integrity. It sounds like he’s trying to compromise his moral values (see Crime and Punishment). I think what Nick needs to reconsider is his understanding of success. If its only about publishing, then I think he needs to reconsider why he’s writing.
Keep in mind that many of the world’s greatest artists never saw any exposure (or success for that matter) in their life time— Emily Dickinson, Vincent Van Gogh, Herman Melville, to name a few.
While also consider that many artists deemed successful today have their art called into question constantly. Many enjoy the movies of Woody Allen and agree that he’s an interesting person, though not everyone agrees he’s making real art. Woody Allen is in fact a perfect example to consider when thinking about the relationship between art and integrity.
As an artist myself, I’ve honestly always had a morbid obsession with artists who never saw exposure until after they died. I think many do. When an artist dies for their craft, that’s how one knows it’s real and legitimate. I think this morbid obsession can go so far that many artists in fact take advantage to further their careers artificially (suicide is pretty popular in artistic circles).
I sympathize with Nick that it is hard to determine where to place the line. Which artists live on to influence future artists can only be determined in time, even after one passes on unfortunately. But, whenever I think of past artists that influence me, most that come to mind lived dedicated to integrity and their art proved it in some way.
Maybe the real question here is do you need integrity to make good art?
Who thinks Woody Allen doesn’t create real art? How could that even be a question? (By “real art” do you mean “good art”?) You’d have to be completely ignorant… that would be a baffling assertion.
Dickinson, van Gogh, and Melville are from a past era. I was going to say there won’t likely be any more people like that, amassing a lifetime of work and then being appreciated long after their deaths… popular culture is far too massive and many-tentacled now… it doesn’t–*can’t*–look backward and reassess now in the same way that it could… but then I remembered Bolano. So, I don’t know. I guess his death is romanticized. But all that said, do you really want to be one of those people? I don’t believe in an afterlife, nor do I care in anything but a vague and abstract way about what happens after I die. I’d rather live a creatively productive life and reap real world rewards from it while I’m still here. I’d rather make a living as a writer than work at a bank, write at night, and became appreciated after I’m gone.
Yes, that *is* the real (implied) question wrt to my post.
And the answer is no, you don’t need to be a good person to make good art. (See: Gauguin, John Lennon, VS Naipul, Philip Larkin, etc etc etc… come on, do you really not know this?) There are reasons to strive for both goals, but they are separate things. I think that’s a fairly obvious/uncontroversial statement.
Who thinks Woody Allen doesn’t create real art? How could that even be a question? (By “real art” do you mean “good art”?) You’d have to be completely ignorant… that would be a baffling assertion.
Dickinson, van Gogh, and Melville are from a past era. I was going to say there won’t likely be any more people like that, amassing a lifetime of work and then being appreciated long after their deaths… popular culture is far too massive and many-tentacled now… it doesn’t–*can’t*–look backward and reassess now in the same way that it could… but then I remembered Bolano. So, I don’t know. I guess his death is romanticized. But all that said, do you really want to be one of those people? I don’t believe in an afterlife, nor do I care in anything but a vague and abstract way about what happens after I die. I’d rather live a creatively productive life and reap real world rewards from it while I’m still here. I’d rather make a living as a writer than work at a bank, write at night, and became appreciated after I’m gone.
Yes, that *is* the real (implied) question wrt to my post.
And the answer is no, you don’t need to be a good person to make good art. (See: Gauguin, John Lennon, VS Naipul, Philip Larkin, etc etc etc… come on, do you really not know this?) There are reasons to strive for both goals, but they are separate things. I think that’s a fairly obvious/uncontroversial statement.
“But, whenever I think of past artists that influence me, most that come to mind lived dedicated to integrity and their art proved it in some way.”
I’m interested in this… can you give examples of the ones you’re referring to? Or do you mean Dickinson, Melville, van Gogh specifically?
“But, whenever I think of past artists that influence me, most that come to mind lived dedicated to integrity and their art proved it in some way.”
I’m interested in this… can you give examples of the ones you’re referring to? Or do you mean Dickinson, Melville, van Gogh specifically?
love connection
love connection
38 comments on this tired-rehash ‘think piece’ on how artists need to make practical choices if they’re dedicated, decisions that somehow exist outside of ethics, and not a single mention of “capitalism” as a driving social force, or how your ‘opportunities’ somehow ignore race and gender while implying both in your examples. there will always be artists who celebrate the individualistic asshole move over community-minded arts production because there is money and success to be made.
sorry, but there is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in the world, unfortunately it just isn’t rewarded under a capitalist economy. asshole behavior however, is. do what you have to do, accumulate what you can, and don’t slow down to worry about who you hurt.
yep. apologists without accountability. ‘perfect world’ ethics. not thought-provoking: boring and pedestrian.
38 comments on this tired-rehash ‘think piece’ on how artists need to make practical choices if they’re dedicated, decisions that somehow exist outside of ethics, and not a single mention of “capitalism” as a driving social force, or how your ‘opportunities’ somehow ignore race and gender while implying both in your examples. there will always be artists who celebrate the individualistic asshole move over community-minded arts production because there is money and success to be made.
sorry, but there is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in the world, unfortunately it just isn’t rewarded under a capitalist economy. asshole behavior however, is. do what you have to do, accumulate what you can, and don’t slow down to worry about who you hurt.
yep. apologists without accountability. ‘perfect world’ ethics. not thought-provoking: boring and pedestrian.
Blaming capitalism is too easy (although it is worth discussing in this context). Communists were hard on artists, too. Good art subverts the status quo; therefore, it’s in the interest of whoever (or whatever system) is in power to suppress that which undermines it.
Blaming capitalism is too easy (although it is worth discussing in this context). Communists were hard on artists, too. Good art subverts the status quo; therefore, it’s in the interest of whoever (or whatever system) is in power to suppress that which undermines it.
Anybody can make art, you certainly don’t need to be a saint to make art, but integrity has always been the primary force that has attracted me to the arts. I thought that’s what attracts most people. Every other college dormitory in America doesn’t have a poster of Gauguin hanging on their wall, everybody seems to like Starry Night.
I like Woody Allen films too. They’re very entertaining. I simply brought up Allen because he’s a good example to think about when considering the relationship between art and integrity. You certainly would agree Woody Allen is no model of integrity — at the very least. In this regard, consider this, not everyone has actually seen Annie Hall but nearly everyone knows Woody Allen for sleeping with his adopted daughter.
“And the answer is no, you don’t need to be a good person to make good art. (See: Gauguin, John Lennon, VS Naipul, Philip Larkin, etc etc etc… come on, do you really not know this?) There are reasons to strive for both goals, but they are separate things. I think that’s a fairly obvious/uncontroversial statement.”
You’re post is provoking because you’re essentially saying fuck integrity. I wouldn’t suggest anyone live like Dickinson or van Gogh. It’s just that in literary/artistic circles pretentiousness is always questioned. The reason why those artists are immortalized is because they set the standard of what a real artist is, someone who lived by their craft. Go right ahead a reap the benefits of your trade, but your audience will always question your commitment — question whether you’re an artist or just another asshole. But I think you’ve decided that for them…
If you want to be a whore and an asshole Nick, go right ahead. But that will be reflected in your art, and that’s how you’ll be remembered.
Anybody can make art, you certainly don’t need to be a saint to make art, but integrity has always been the primary force that has attracted me to the arts. I thought that’s what attracts most people. Every other college dormitory in America doesn’t have a poster of Gauguin hanging on their wall, everybody seems to like Starry Night.
I like Woody Allen films too. They’re very entertaining. I simply brought up Allen because he’s a good example to think about when considering the relationship between art and integrity. You certainly would agree Woody Allen is no model of integrity — at the very least. In this regard, consider this, not everyone has actually seen Annie Hall but nearly everyone knows Woody Allen for sleeping with his adopted daughter.
“And the answer is no, you don’t need to be a good person to make good art. (See: Gauguin, John Lennon, VS Naipul, Philip Larkin, etc etc etc… come on, do you really not know this?) There are reasons to strive for both goals, but they are separate things. I think that’s a fairly obvious/uncontroversial statement.”
You’re post is provoking because you’re essentially saying fuck integrity. I wouldn’t suggest anyone live like Dickinson or van Gogh. It’s just that in literary/artistic circles pretentiousness is always questioned. The reason why those artists are immortalized is because they set the standard of what a real artist is, someone who lived by their craft. Go right ahead a reap the benefits of your trade, but your audience will always question your commitment — question whether you’re an artist or just another asshole. But I think you’ve decided that for them…
If you want to be a whore and an asshole Nick, go right ahead. But that will be reflected in your art, and that’s how you’ll be remembered.
Your prim attitude toward Woody Allen is telling, as is your backhanded “very entertaining” appraisal of his movies. The guy’s a brilliant dramatist, and ‘Crimes and Misdemeanors’ and ‘Hannah and Her Sisters’ are among the best films ever made, I’d argue. If your ability to appreciate his films is mitigated by his relationship to his ex-wife’s adopted daughter, now his wife, then that’s too bad for you.
“integrity has always been the primary force that has attracted me to the arts. I thought that’s what attracts most people”
At first I assumed you meant artistic integrity, but from the context of your later statements, it seems that you actually mean being an upstanding person, good husband, father, whatever… in which I think you’re oriented pretty bizarrely and, well, wrong. You seriously think Starry Night is a popular painting *because van Gogh was a great guy??* That’s why it’s on dorm room walls? What the fuck are you talking about? It’s all over walls all over the world because it’s a great painting! And, uh, last time I checked, Gauguin is still pretty popular. And I’m not saying “fuck integrity,”… in fact, I’m saying if you live by, and for, your craft, it might mean doing things quite contradictory to the social ethics we’ve all had drilled into us.
Your prim attitude toward Woody Allen is telling, as is your backhanded “very entertaining” appraisal of his movies. The guy’s a brilliant dramatist, and ‘Crimes and Misdemeanors’ and ‘Hannah and Her Sisters’ are among the best films ever made, I’d argue. If your ability to appreciate his films is mitigated by his relationship to his ex-wife’s adopted daughter, now his wife, then that’s too bad for you.
“integrity has always been the primary force that has attracted me to the arts. I thought that’s what attracts most people”
At first I assumed you meant artistic integrity, but from the context of your later statements, it seems that you actually mean being an upstanding person, good husband, father, whatever… in which I think you’re oriented pretty bizarrely and, well, wrong. You seriously think Starry Night is a popular painting *because van Gogh was a great guy??* That’s why it’s on dorm room walls? What the fuck are you talking about? It’s all over walls all over the world because it’s a great painting! And, uh, last time I checked, Gauguin is still pretty popular. And I’m not saying “fuck integrity,”… in fact, I’m saying if you live by, and for, your craft, it might mean doing things quite contradictory to the social ethics we’ve all had drilled into us.
The problem with lying and whoring to get published is that your writing has to be good enough to justify your misbehavior.
The problem with lying and whoring to get published is that your writing has to be good enough to justify your misbehavior.