Here’s a question for ya……is it a good thing or a bad thing to have no real creative focus? To feel the need to flit from thing to thing – to be a creative tart (in the most vernacular sense of the word)?
There are so many things that I have my creative soul immersed in. I dance and teach dance, I make costumes for dancers, make jewellery (so that includes marketing and photography which I SUCK at), am creative in general and I try to do the best that I can to create two human beings who are thoughtful and funny and creative themselves. To be honest I’m never sure that I manage to achieve any of the goals I set myself but I do try.
My new creative inspiration is a woman called Gillian Allen. She is hugely inspiring to me. Her artwork, in all its forms, has a coherence that I love and her aesthetic style is one I admire and aspire to whilst at the same time hoping that I might be able to forge a place for myself in the small and comforting sphere in which I inhabit.
Being a commercial artist (in whatever form you choose) takes some chuztpah and so I am not saying that I aspire to becoming a successful commercial artist. In fact, to become someone who inhabits that realm I think one needs to have something different to chutzpah, you just need a grasp of bullshit. And to travel in circles that ensure that you have access to those people who have excess cash and minimum taste.
In my former life (before children and responsibilities) I was enthralled by The KLF who amongst other things tried to perteptrate a great art scam by creating *art* and trying to sell it to art galleries (they filmed all of this) who claimed that they could not well it to them (the galleries) unless they were “artists”. People who had risen through the ranks of those who were celebrated as artists by means of nefarious activities appear to be described and celebrated as *artists*. I have to assume that they were nefarious activities (by which I mean bribery and sex) because who on Earth can determine is an artist except for the person who wishes to obtain the art that has been produced by the *artist* in question? Our society has always placed a price on someone who has procured something via means of money or sex (and it’s usually sex if we examine history, money coming a close second).
What I loved about The KLF (Bill Drummond and Jimmy Cauty) was their burning of and then nailing to a board of a million pounds of their own money and then trying to sell the results nailed to a board as *art* (you should say, “One Miiiiillion Pounds” in a Dr Evil voice along with the *little finger at the corner of the mouth* affectation in order for this to have full effect). Without an understanding of the *art world* one could assume that the burning of such a great amount of money, and then the nailing of it to a board to show how this form of swapping something (printed paper) for something else (things) is subject purely to our idea of what each thing is worth and perceived as, would be a massively important piece of art. BUT, Bill Drummond and Billy Cauty were not recognised as artists. So their work meant nothing.
Although Bill Drummond has apparently since said he regrets burning the money the documentary that was made about their efforts was hugely enlightening, with art gallery staff questioning their status as *artists*. Being an artist was shown to be a commercial venture that those without special invitation were not allowed to take part in. So art is not about what you like…..
Anyway. I love that the Internet exists. I love that I can experience the art that others produce without having to buy expensive books without seeing them in advance. On the back of the stuff I have discovered recently via the Internet I have bought books and purchased craft materials that I didn’t know existed and now I’m doing my bit to share.
For inspiration go: