Craft Notes
Fire Beats Art
This morning, I heard a story on NPR about the wildfires in Russia.
Among the stories of the tragic loss of life and home was one about a woman in a small village who attempted to save her house from the flames by standing out front holding up a Russian Orthodox religious icon. One could react to this in a number of ways. This could be an opportunity to deride religious faith or a point in the “God is dead or never was” column. This could be seen as a cautionary tale about the right and wrong kind of fire extinguisher a person should have on hand in their home. Or this could be, for artists, a time to offer an apology.
To the extent that I might or might not be an “artist,” and bearing in mind the fact that, even if I could be considered an “artist,” the community of artists is likely never going to vote me in as their spokesman, I would still like to apologize to this Russian woman for the failure of the religious icon to stop the fire from consuming her house.
I realize that when holding up the icon against the fire, the woman was thinking of it as a lens through which to focus her religious faith, and hoped that through her faith her home would be spared. It was a religious icon being held up to beat back the fire, not, say, a de Kooning print or a copy of Joshua Cohen’s new novel Witz*. But religious proxy or not, it was still a piece of art, and it still failed to save her house.
Frankly, artists should be thanking this woman. She has a—probably misplaced—faith in art**. A faith most artists certainly don’t have***. She tried to hold back the destruction of her home with art and art failed her.
And when art fails, it is because the artist failed.
Go ahead and complain that the woman did not use art as directed. Try to find some clever loophole to absolve yourself of the guilt. Deep down, though, we know what we did. Or what we failed to do, anyway. Shame on us.
Russian lady: we’re sorry****.
* Have you readers heard anything about this book? Anywhere?
** And—possibly misplaced—faith in God. But who am I to judge?
*** Cynical, cynical bunch.
**** And those of us who aren’t should be.
she missed her roll. item no proc.
try again next round.
Matthew, have a look five blogicles ‘down’ from yours on the HTMLGIANT master-thread and you’ll find mention of and links associated with Witz – Cohen is a favorite of your colleague Justin Taylor and correspondent (?) Kyle Minor.
Do you mean ‘heard anything about this book anywhere else‘?
Great post.
Thanks for this, Matthew. Shame on us indeed. I’m always wishing people, perhaps artists especially, felt more shame. Every day we should all figure out at least one thing to feel shame for.
Apparently there is a lack of consensus over the difference between shame and guilt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shame#Shame_vs._guilt_and_embarrassment
but I think guilt seems awfully self-important compared to shame. If you feel guilty, you want absolution. If you feel shame, you want to change yourself.
Wait…WHAT?!?!
i disagree with 100% of what amy just said.
changing one’s self out of shame is a horrible thing to promote.
…But then there was the guy who did save his house by holding up a copy of Bill, the Galactic Hero…
[I think this piece smells of Schroedinger’s Cake – of an anti-anti-faith-but-still-anti-faith wager – , but thinking about what it says is a fun game.]
[W]hen art fails, it is because the artist failed.
What’s the difference between ‘fail’ and ‘succeed’ in the case of “art”? Is it simply a matter of instrumentality, of art objects being used as tools to get something specific and manageable done?
Is “art” ‘succeeding’ completely down to “the artist”? We should blame Francis for the Inquisition, Picasso for Franco??
Ah. You’re mocking the hype-icane hurtling round easily-virtuous Cohen?
Unless she’s less gullible than I, you’ll have that Picoult twit-grumbling about how ‘it’s always an icky dewd at hot male giant!’.
I don’t get it, Amy. Unless you have something for which you ‘should’ feel shame, I see no value in finding shame. I mean, do you really live your life in a shameful way? I don’t.
Fail Succeed:
It really depends on the piece of art, how it fails and how it succeeds. Artist’s give out art, and art appreciators find their own utility in it. And it succeeds or fails based on the parameters of the “user.”
In this specific case, art failed the Russian woman trying to use it to keep the flames off her house. And, sure, it wasn’t the “intention” of the icon to retard the advancement of fire, but maybe the artist wasn’t being clear enough about her or his intentions?
And though I don’t believe the artist is culpable or deserving of blame, I think it is simply good manners for the artist to apologize when their art fails. So even thought we can’t—and shouldn’t—prosecute Picasso for Franco., maybe it would’ve been nice for him to offer a little “my bad.”
Since I’ve never painted a religious icon in my life, I think I can safely say I could never be blamed for such a catastrophe, thank you very much.
(smokes a cigar)
Art and religion come from the same obsessive-compulsive recesses in our minds.
Yeah. Sorry. Kinda douchey of me.
Actually, I’m thinking of picking up a copy of that book today.
Not a word of it. I bit.
Can earthworms live in your stomach if you eat lots of tv dinners?
she missed her roll. item no proc.
try again next round.
Matthew, have a look five blogicles ‘down’ from yours on the HTMLGIANT master-thread and you’ll find mention of and links associated with Witz – Cohen is a favorite of your colleague Justin Taylor and correspondent (?) Kyle Minor.
Do you mean ‘heard anything about this book anywhere else‘?
Great post.
I heard about this book on the Rumpus. It turns out the Rumpus has snuck into my bookshelf. In the past couple of months I have bought Citrus County, Witz, Airships, and a subscription to McSweeny’s, all more or less from clicking through Rumpus links. I also got Four Fingers of Death and Freedom, but I would have bought those anyway.
Read that at first as “Four Fingers of Death and Freedom”.
Thanks for this, Matthew. Shame on us indeed. I’m always wishing people, perhaps artists especially, felt more shame. Every day we should all figure out at least one thing to feel shame for.
Apparently there is a lack of consensus over the difference between shame and guilt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shame#Shame_vs._guilt_and_embarrassment
but I think guilt seems awfully self-important compared to shame. If you feel guilty, you want absolution. If you feel shame, you want to change yourself.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W2fDGM1IRU
Wait…WHAT?!?!
i disagree with 100% of what amy just said.
changing one’s self out of shame is a horrible thing to promote.
Look! It thinks it’s a Jimmy Chen post!
…But then there was the guy who did save his house by holding up a copy of Bill, the Galactic Hero…
Huh. Hold on.
No. No, I’m pretty sure I wrote this one.
Wouldn’t be a comment thread without a troll, though. Thanks for doing your part.
Add ‘worm food’ to mac and catsup??
Oh; obviating the purchase of alcohol.
[I think this piece smells of Schroedinger’s Cake – of an anti-anti-faith-but-still-anti-faith wager – , but thinking about what it says is a fun game.]
[W]hen art fails, it is because the artist failed.
What’s the difference between ‘fail’ and ‘succeed’ in the case of “art”? Is it simply a matter of instrumentality, of art objects being used as tools to get something specific and manageable done?
Is “art” ‘succeeding’ completely down to “the artist”? We should blame Francis for the Inquisition, Picasso for Franco??
Ah. You’re mocking the hype-icane hurtling round easily-virtuous Cohen?
Unless she’s less gullible than I, you’ll have that Picoult twit-grumbling about how ‘it’s always an icky dewd at hot male giant!’.
I don’t get it, Amy. Unless you have something for which you ‘should’ feel shame, I see no value in finding shame. I mean, do you really live your life in a shameful way? I don’t.
Fail Succeed:
It really depends on the piece of art, how it fails and how it succeeds. Artist’s give out art, and art appreciators find their own utility in it. And it succeeds or fails based on the parameters of the “user.”
In this specific case, art failed the Russian woman trying to use it to keep the flames off her house. And, sure, it wasn’t the “intention” of the icon to retard the advancement of fire, but maybe the artist wasn’t being clear enough about her or his intentions?
And though I don’t believe the artist is culpable or deserving of blame, I think it is simply good manners for the artist to apologize when their art fails. So even thought we can’t—and shouldn’t—prosecute Picasso for Franco., maybe it would’ve been nice for him to offer a little “my bad.”
I’m noting the similarity between your posts and the artsy and observant Mr. Chen, nothing more…
Since I’ve never painted a religious icon in my life, I think I can safely say I could never be blamed for such a catastrophe, thank you very much.
(smokes a cigar)
Art and religion come from the same obsessive-compulsive recesses in our minds.
art failed the Russian woman
Not from her long-term point of view, Matthew.
Yes, her proximate goal was “to keep the flames off her house”, and the icon + her prayers (ceremony) + her faith didn’t manage this magical trick.
But, in accordance with her ultimate commitments, her actions were precisely in line with the salvation of her immortal soul. She might even blame herself for having asked for mercy in the case of such a small loss as her possessions in this world – in which property Jesus had much-attested disinterest, at his most enthusiastic.
In a political-economically angered moment, I might fault her for her faith – “believing in something you know ain’t so”. But I’d expect her and the artist not to call her actions – and the icon – a “failure” . . . yet.
—–
Picasso might hold off on that ‘my bad’ ’til he were assured that Guernica didn’t save even a single life – due to a miniscule shaft of enlightenment it might have occasioned in a fascist soldier/cop.
When, in moments of despair, people (like Auden) say things like ‘art changes nothing, especially for the better’, they systematically forget what things might be like without it.
Since my name’s been invoked in a manner that implies sheep-like-ness, I’ll say this:
If I liked something (for example, the writings of Joshua Cohen) before many people had heard of it, then a lot of other people heard of it and decided they liked it, too, then they said so publicly and linked up to what I had said, I’d still like the thing I liked in the first place, and I’d also be happy that other people found and liked it. I don’t think a lot of people saying they like something means it’s not worth liking anymore.
Yeah. Sorry. Kinda douchey of me.
Actually, I’m thinking of picking up a copy of that book today.
Not a word of it. I bit.
Can earthworms live in your stomach if you eat lots of tv dinners?
I heard about this book on the Rumpus. It turns out the Rumpus has snuck into my bookshelf. In the past couple of months I have bought Citrus County, Witz, Airships, and a subscription to McSweeny’s, all more or less from clicking through Rumpus links. I also got Four Fingers of Death and Freedom, but I would have bought those anyway.
Read that at first as “Four Fingers of Death and Freedom”.
Kyle, where do you see this “manner”?
Matthew was joking, in the blogicle footnote and, especially, his reply to my easily-gulled earnestness, about a perceived indie/undie confluence of enthusiasm, a small popularity-spout whirling at the edge – the remote edge – of Real Popularity.
I didn’t think he was imputing dishonesty or ovine susceptibility to huddling together on, say, your part.
. . . um – damn it. Is this mock-defensiveness?? Great; now I’ll get a Mary Tyler Moore clip hung around my neck.
Mock-defensiveness. But worth it to elicit a phrase like “ovine susceptibility,” which I’m stealing right away.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W2fDGM1IRU
Look! It thinks it’s a Jimmy Chen post!
Huh. Hold on.
No. No, I’m pretty sure I wrote this one.
Wouldn’t be a comment thread without a troll, though. Thanks for doing your part.
Add ‘worm food’ to mac and catsup??
Oh; obviating the purchase of alcohol.
[…] HTMLGIANT / Fire Beats Art No Comments Read More […]
I’m noting the similarity between your posts and the artsy and observant Mr. Chen, nothing more…
art failed the Russian woman
Not from her long-term point of view, Matthew.
Yes, her proximate goal was “to keep the flames off her house”, and the icon + her prayers (ceremony) + her faith didn’t manage this magical trick.
But, in accordance with her ultimate commitments, her actions were precisely in line with the salvation of her immortal soul. She might even blame herself for having asked for mercy in the case of such a small loss as her possessions in this world – in which property Jesus had much-attested disinterest, at his most enthusiastic.
In a political-economically angered moment, I might fault her for her faith – “believing in something you know ain’t so”. But I’d expect her and the artist not to call her actions – and the icon – a “failure” . . . yet.
—–
Picasso might hold off on that ‘my bad’ ’til he were assured that Guernica didn’t save even a single life – due to a miniscule shaft of enlightenment it might have occasioned in a fascist soldier/cop.
When, in moments of despair, people (like Auden) say things like ‘art changes nothing, especially for the better’, they systematically forget what things might be like without it.
Since my name’s been invoked in a manner that implies sheep-like-ness, I’ll say this:
If I liked something (for example, the writings of Joshua Cohen) before many people had heard of it, then a lot of other people heard of it and decided they liked it, too, then they said so publicly and linked up to what I had said, I’d still like the thing I liked in the first place, and I’d also be happy that other people found and liked it. I don’t think a lot of people saying they like something means it’s not worth liking anymore.
Kyle, where do you see this “manner”?
Matthew was joking, in the blogicle footnote and, especially, his reply to my easily-gulled earnestness, about a perceived indie/undie confluence of enthusiasm, a small popularity-spout whirling at the edge – the remote edge – of Real Popularity.
I didn’t think he was imputing dishonesty or ovine susceptibility to huddling together on, say, your part.
. . . um – damn it. Is this mock-defensiveness?? Great; now I’ll get a Mary Tyler Moore clip hung around my neck.
Mock-defensiveness. But worth it to elicit a phrase like “ovine susceptibility,” which I’m stealing right away.
You know . . . last I checked, there were several people among Kids in the Hall who had a sense of humor. Where do they find them all?
You know . . . last I checked, there were several people among Kids in the Hall who had a sense of humor. Where do they find them all?