Following on from yesterday’s thoughts on the Berlin artists
claiming to be committing artistic suicide in order to protest against
something, I want to consider the concept of artistic suicide per se. To then
it seems to mean something like this: they are artists, they distinguish
themselves from people who are not, they consider their work to have technical/aesthetic
merit and also to be valuable in itself as the product of an act of creative
self-expression. Valuable to them and to others, which I think is an important
point.
There is, of course, no reasonable comparison between burning
a painting and setting yourself on fire in front of the Ministry of Employment,
but it does involve a definite sacrifice of something that not only belongs to
you, but which you understand to be part of you. If this seems to be straying
into pompous cobblers territory again, this time you’re probably right.
Nonetheless, there is some truth in it. Assuming that the
works have some artistic merit and that they weren’t produced specially for the
occasion, and assuming that they have done this with the real aim of saving
these arts centres, and not just to get their picture in the paper, the
symbolism of the event means more to these artists than would the mere
destruction of their property. There is no reason why anyone should recognise
the importance of that symbolism, or take it remotely seriously, but it is
their work they have destroyed, something which is more important to them, and,
they think, to you, or at least it should be, than mere belongings, even those
that were worth much more than the flaming art. If their painting were worth
money, they wouldn’t be in this position, so I think it’s safe to assume that the
artworks were among the least valuable of their possessions. Yet they have not
burnt their iPads and Prada handbags, because the sacrifice, and so the
protest, would have been less.
I’m a writer. Not a successful one, it’s true, but an artist
of sorts. I can never bring myself to destroy or delete any of the stories I write,
even the ones I know aren’t very good or haven’t worked the way I intended. Or which
I now recognise will never be finished.* So I know why they think they have
made a sacrifice, and that their protest should be understood in that light.
To Paul Erdich, the eccentric mathematician (eccentric is
something of an understatement, but there you are) death was a mere
inconvenience. To learn that a colleague had shuffled off this mortal coil
meant no more to him than that he would have to change his schedule and find
someone else to bounce ideas off about that paper they were working on. To
learn that a colleague had ceased to do mathematics, however, was a tragedy
that could affect him very deeply. A mother will choose to sacrifice her own
life before that of her child (or so we are told, and anecdote tends to bear it
out). That which we think of as part of ourselves, for whatever reason,
whatever we have made emotional investment in, has far more value to us than an
observer would guess who didn’t know of that investment.
So with all these caveats, and mutatis mutandes, I recognise
and accept the concept of artistic suicide.
No comments:
Post a Comment