On portraits of the artist as a complete jackass, and why we need new kinds of stories about artists.
"Since all art finally affirms something, if only its own value, some attitudes thus dance better than others."
Some say "good, better, best" is an absurdity and best done away with. I agree, sort of.
Fun game to play: Pick a person, and imagine what kind of creative advice they would give you. Then compare that to the actual advice they give you.
“Every director has one film to make. He just keeps remaking it.”
People aren't flowers, of the hothouse variety or otherwise, and neither are artists.
We need to have more nuanced ways of taking what matters for us from a given creator and from their works.
I have been reading the writings of Gerhard Richter, a painter whose view of his work is a good deal more interesting to me than much of the work itself. He was, like John Cage, not interested in creating things that were an expression of his personality; he wanted some larger aspect of things to manifest itself through him. In fact, Cage is explicitly credited as an influence, and in one of the photos in the book, Cage is seen smiling in front of one of Richter's paintings.
There is no such thing as "mastery" of one's art, just improvement in whatever form is possible.
Art isn't profound just because it hurts.
Go make something beautiful and humane. Everything else is just commentary.
Artists can be politically outspoken, but are not automatically astute for being so.
Why "I'm an artist" stopped being a defense for the indefensible.
On (not) taking refuge in one's art.
Artists don't need to be damaged to be profound.
Science fiction, rebooted.
New York City
Other Lives Of The Mind