tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post1986310203141010162..comments2024-03-16T16:43:13.585-04:00Comments on thoughts & ramblings: The Misunderstood Art Of ArtistryZack Hemseyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-74266748791939944422022-07-31T18:38:33.302-04:002022-07-31T18:38:33.302-04:00Good afternoon, I'm to the fullest extent of t...Good afternoon, I'm to the fullest extent of the meaning in my words that your music has moved me, whole heartedly, courageously, and with my respects to you. Thank you, your music helped me awaken me in my life. It would have been dull, broken, lost, and basically a lesser person without your amazing transcendent ability to match your words as with many others, to my soul.. bless you and your artistic abilities. God bless brother, God blessMike whipple/ Mario Delmoralnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-2586194519939008612020-04-16T01:28:01.637-04:002020-04-16T01:28:01.637-04:00This was a very interesting read. But one of the m...This was a very interesting read. But one of the many questions I've had in regard to art, is can anything created with a vision solely for the purpose of creation be considered an artistic creation? Can art invade any form of creation such as cars or interior design, etc. Can someone who simply creates something they feel compelled to create out of the vision in their heart be considered an artist, no matter the medium? I have always thought the answer to that is yes.Dylan Waltersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-65027872007391165022018-01-14T14:42:10.767-05:002018-01-14T14:42:10.767-05:00I get it, In truth, I believe what you are saying,...I get it, In truth, I believe what you are saying, at least, what I am getting from this, is that a artist is honest in their work and honest to themselves in who they are.They may look to others for advice, but as long as they don't compromise their artistic spirit, they remain a artist. In fact, they take advice from others that they agree with to further their art, and better express themselves in what they do. They don't change who they are, but they may change what they do if it means to better express themselves or show what they are trying to.<br /><br />We get so caught up in all of life's stresses, money and other things, we tend to sacrifice what we want in a attempt to deal with these Issues. And no, it isn't wrong to make money off of your work, but if its at the expense of being true to yourself, you are not being a true artist. As you said, a artist creates not for anyone or any money, but merely for themselves and to express what they wish.<br /><br />We have to ask "Was this what I wanted to show? Was this my goal? Is this me, and how I wanted to express myself or this subject?"<br /><br />and the truth is, if you make what is true to yourself, rather than what others want(unless of course that is truly the route you wanted to take) or what others say you should, those who truly like your art or what you express will eventually find you.If some people help you to improve something you have done and you agree with the improvements, and also was thinking the same thing, so be it. But don't forget who you are, and what your artist spirit is, and what it is supposed to be expressing. you will be happier, and so will others.<br /><br />Thanks for writing this out. Honestly Even I forget to ask myself these questions, and remembering the true definition of a artist has surely helped me remember.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13681276917880107027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-53929523642231598492018-01-07T08:27:46.697-05:002018-01-07T08:27:46.697-05:00No..no, no..hold on a sec
Listen - while I'm ...No..no, no..hold on a sec<br /><br />Listen - while I'm generally happy to discuss this stuff...it is absolutely CONFOUNDING to think someone could end up with such a one-dimensional response like yours after claiming to have read this exchange! Zach Hemsey and I may end up with some minute disagreements - but we TRIED to absorb what we could and gained from it all in a variety of valuable ways. <br /><br />And regardless, how can I discuss this further? I mean, notice the conversation's obvious linear procession over time, fashioned organically. And if you reread it you'll find that yes, there IS a lot to it; we didn't get to everything or even try to, as that simply wasn't what unfolded.<br /><br />"What would a composer or an artist be without those who interpret and carry on their creations in some way?"<br /><br />Are you kidding me!? They would still be a composer or an artist...And you didn't get THAT all-important point out of reading the main text?!? What is YOUR point???? Enough.Nath Osmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05071068896312078851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-13623947309365957512018-01-07T07:31:16.958-05:002018-01-07T07:31:16.958-05:00Nath--I think I disagree with what you are perceiv...Nath--I think I disagree with what you are perceiving as "artist vs. entertainer" and whatnot and would refer you to the article's depiction below:<br />'As breathtakingly skilled and uniquely expressive as they may be, performers and musicians are interpreting art; not creating it.'<br /><br />I happen to be an enormous classical music fan, so I know the _tremendous value_ of performers from my experience in the audience at venues both large and small as orchestras and string quartets go on tour. What you missed in the quote I presented from the article is the _first_ half. It's a thrilling experience to (for me and some, at least) witness a Performance.<br /><br />Take for instance _Hamilton_ the musical for ease of demonstrating that (go along with this--even if you probably disagree based on what I can glean of you) an artist is behind its creation. Are you beginning to notice this multifacetedness? What would a composer or an artist be without those who interpret and carry on their creations in some way? Would you admit that you've sort of missed the point? I could go on--but I've been quite clear.<br /><br />Now, although I think it evident you missed the mark in that regard, most of your contribution to the discussion, I'd say, does incorporate salient points about the Philosopher, though via methods that seem to me quite mercurial, even ephemeral. I haven't gotten "the point" but I appreciate the dialogue. I just don't think it much applicable to Zach Hemsey's helpful infrastructure. I do relate to a lot of what you say and grant that you reacted the way you did because the title of the article may be somewhat misleading. And the quote I used shows that the terms really need to be fleshed out since it uses "musician" in a way that sounds as though musicians aren't artists. But I think the author fleshes it out pretty well. It's just not the article you wre hoping for. <br /><br />However, there really is a lot to cover. I'll further grant that maybe I missed it but the line between "entertainer" and performer--though I picture them separately in my head--appears missing to some extent? That could be me misreading or misunderstanding the article. But for your (Nath's) purposes, perhaps an "On the Nature of the Artist" article is what you were looking for and trying to turn this one into--and maybe it is needed, who knows, but that is where your points would soar.<br /><br />Terrific and fun read! I wonder who else is out there with something to add to (and continue to pester) Zach Hemsey--but that's what you deserve, Zach Hemsey, if you write so competently like this article!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09032565940334939660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-73562523341831594342018-01-04T01:45:49.985-05:002018-01-04T01:45:49.985-05:00I am enlightenment. I know things that I ALSO know...I am enlightenment. I know things that I ALSO know I cannot prove to you. It is 100% true that there is no free will. This is proven scientifically. Further, each time I comment, I can completely contradict my own former comments as I see fit, because I am skeptical of the concept of personality, not the same person as before I went to bed las...<br /><br />Kidding, kidding. I took in your entire message - thank you. This blog isn't about my beliefs and it HARDLY matters whether I try to state them or not, but alas, you did "suppose" some things that were a little off (all conversational, I know, a la hitting the ball back)...<br /><br />of the divide between "factual" and "intuitive" knowledge: I reject, as before<br /><br />of free will: ohh boy...in short, the "thing" eludes me - as do people who try to define it without realizing it but while believing it (or vice versa or any of this in any order)<br /><br />of elevating the artist: if so, it would remain held within me, never for pride, but I doubt striving to do so aligns with my personal nature or goals anyway<br /><br />of compromising artistry: I'm on board with your ideas<br /><br />of what in the world your last comment is about: clever twist / metaplay(?), uh-oh is the "dubious of personality" part of my intro...ACTUALLY TRUE? Who am I speaking with?? Hahaha. No, I think I understand.<br /><br />Amusing indeed. <br />So there, now you have a small guide to know further where we agree and disagree. Thanks!Nath Osmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05071068896312078851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-24753850935685822352018-01-03T12:04:06.403-05:002018-01-03T12:04:06.403-05:00I agree conversation entails more than communicati...I agree conversation entails more than communicating to another - it's also communing with one’s self - it polishes the mirror, allowing a clearer view of one's own perspective and understanding. This entire comments section has been of tremendous value to that end for me…even after having written the article, I became more deeply in touch with its essence upon engaging in the variety of exchanges that followed, not just from what was presented to me but largely from the consequence of struggling to get a better understanding of why I was reacting to what was being presented to me in whatever manner I was.<br /><br />Our particular exchange is amusing, in that neither of us are certain if we agree or disagree, nor if the other even understands what we’ve been saying. But it has been a rewarding and educational exchange nonetheless!<br /><br />I think to a large degree, you’ve been trying to articulate something that eludes articulation in response to commentary from me, and I’ve been pushing back against your interpretation of my commentary rather than to that which you were attempting to articulate in the first place. So let me try to do the latter now.<br /><br />With your last clarifications in mind, I would agree that one cannot help but have the convictions that they do, but I don’t think it follows from this that one’s artistry is intrinsically compromised as a consequence (or is at risk of being so). And while I hear that you are asserting the truth of this in order to oppose it, I don’t think the truth you’re opposing is necessarily true. As I see it, one is or isn’t an artist by nature (or has or doesn’t have the capacity for artistry) through no control of their own, but how they respond to that nature and/or what they do with it is a product of their agency. Thus, it is always a choice whether one “honors” their artistry or compromises it.<br /><br />Two clarifications: 1) Granting that one simply has artistry (or the capacity for such) through no volition of their own, supposing that one day that quality simply vanishes through no volition of their own, this would not equate to a compromising of their previous artistry, as you can only compromise it if you possess it in the first place. 2) If one is of the belief that agency / free will is an illusion, then it would necessarily follow that artistry is compromised (or at risk of such) through no control of the person (but I don’t hold this view of free will).<br /><br />I also think nested in your commentary is something along the lines of: there is "factual knowledge" on one hand (the knowledge of science and logic), and there is "intuitive knowledge" (or “felt knowledge”) on the other. One may perhaps come into contact with a knowing of sorts, for which there is no external or objective justification or grounds, but in spite of which is sensed deeply enough that it cannot be discounted or cast aside. It may not be defensible, it may not even be sufficiently expressible, but it has a presence - it can be felt - and it holds regardless of whether we acknowledge it or acquiesce to it. <br /><br />I suppose further that you suspect artists (and some writers and/or philosophers) may be in touch at some level, or to some degree, with an intuitive knowledge. And that perhaps it is their understanding to that end, or their attempts at understanding to that end, which drive / plague / inspire / burden them in the efforts they undertake, which makes their efforts of unique importance, and/or which elevates their efforts above those of the non artist.<br /><br />Not sure if the above accurately reflects your perspective or not, but I am sympathetic to these notions. And while I was not previously familiar with the quotes from those authors, they all resonate with me as well.Zack Hemseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-18965625389106004512018-01-03T06:03:41.637-05:002018-01-03T06:03:41.637-05:00OKAY, I'll "be good" after this, but...OKAY, I'll "be good" after this, but give me one last shot, because this all suddenly became clearer to me:<br /><br />first an encapsulation of this exchange:<br />1. Your main message is extremely important etc.<br />2. We agree on the nature of the artist, their individuality, the abstract, their kinship with so and so etc. etc.<br />3. I fail to explicate the utility of point 2 in conveying point 1, and we get bogged down in unrelated territory almost to the point that it is you who are arguing for deconstruction though not quite and you mean not to. This is my fault.<br /><br />Toss out "past", "influences", "path to here", "endless questioning",<br />"unsubstantiatable categorizations"... - why is X or Z beautiful? (DISCLAIMER: hereon you will likely disagree with stuff, which is fine) It doesn't matter how far you explore or how many questions you ask. To any extent whatsoever you think about what's behind the answer, absolutely nothing lies behind the fact that right now you CANNOT HELP but have your conviction, whatever it is. If you're convinced that X, you cannot unconvince yourself except to become/find yourself somehow unconvinced, which is to be helplessly convinced all the same. You play no part in this. This is not where the artist's power lies. If it did, you would simply wind up back in a state of endless concern over the fact that you are always compromising your artistry: because you have to face it - all sorts of influences at countless levels from who knows where in your past really might be behind what you think is your own true artistry. What I did wrong was fail to make clear in our exchange that I invoke this whole notion in order to directly oppose, not support, it -<br />regarding what matters to art/artist/artistry. <br /><br />Basically I took too long to notice that my final contention actually lies in your view of what compromises one's artistry vs. my view. And it's fine if we disagree. We agreed on essential aspects, and for whatever it's worth a certain piece of your music has been running through my head while typing this. The end.Nath Osmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05071068896312078851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-77708904926827365852018-01-02T17:33:58.928-05:002018-01-02T17:33:58.928-05:00oops...
"if every sentence is deconstructed ...oops...<br /><br />"if every sentence is deconstructed in this way...then much of basic and effective communication breaks down"<br /><br />don't know how you see it, but we've communicated just fine IMO, as did the authors whose quotes I left ("it is you who are mistaken"..just kidding, point is I wasn't aiming at deconstruction, maybe even at its opposite or something (?) - and maybe that helps with some of the disconnect between what we thought the other was saying)Nath Osmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05071068896312078851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-3425019334549722372018-01-02T17:28:04.163-05:002018-01-02T17:28:04.163-05:00"...there is no objective way to test / prove..."...there is no objective way to test / prove the validity of the purported knowledge." <br /><br />"…there is nothing contradictory or at odds about this." <br /><br />Hmmm....(or in other words, you just restated the contradiction) <br /><br />And yet, in a different way, that was my paradoxical point (where, then, do we disagree? I touch on this at the end) :) <br /><br />"Where do you draw the line in the sea of continuous atoms between you and the things in question?” That's the question, isn't it. There's a sort of power in it. Nearly all the questions preceding it that you have presented across your comments are encompassed by this one (imo), but just your mere invocation of "a special love for all things blue" has richness to me, something to be fond of, something in which is contained my elusive "overall point" that I don't know how long it would take to show that you probably agree with. And let us hope that the "well" of such questions - what I referred to as double-edged - never dries up.<br /><br />I see the fun [of this conversation] is coming to an end, and I believe we probably agree on it all, in the end...so to make a long story short, as I said, my contention was never with your extremely important overall message with which I agree wholeheartedly and also wish to express to others. I thought...no, I FELT it worthwhile...no, who can say why I did it?, but I decided to pursue this thread of thought regarding the nature of the artist. I wanted to convey to you that I urge you to perhaps hesitate before being so quick to go the route of slice-things-into-pieces-logically-as-x-or-z - but for the paradox that this gives you permission to decide for yourself about x or z (which was the nature of our initial discussion regarding who is the true "arbiter of persuasion," proven terminology vs. conversational approach): but also my push for greater regard of the subjective, the individual, which comprises so much of the value of the artist vs. the x y or z. (Oh, I know full well I may be speaking in contradictions hahah) <br />When I said "if it is true, then it is true....if you understand, then you understand" I was saying, questions like "'what constitutes 'special'?'" can often be a red herring, the wrong question to ask to get any bit closer whatsoever to understanding something that SIMPLY IS special, if it is special. That is my way to "agree" that there is nothing contradictory about the "conclusion that is at odds with itself"<br /><br />...because it is all one thing, the endless questions, the abstract/unknown, this paradox of the enigmatic and elusive nature of "knowing that we don't know the nature of" whatever all of this is. <br />Everything the authors of those quotes were grappling with, involved this endless questioning you presented. It is only fitting that it's such a struggle to convey my points to you, points that, once absorbed, would call into question why I might comment in the first place if we already agree on everything. <br />To this I say, I reject the notion that conversation is ONLY for conveying something to another person! who says it must be so?? (not saying you disagree with me) and by commenting at all, even my own words have expanded/benefited my own thoughts, as have your words, so, without explicating any more, it was worth it, it is worth it, and it was fun - and true to the nature of the artist, I say this without a care in the world how you [meta]viewed this little exchange, yourself...to me, you were hitting the ball back, so thanks. <br /><br />But it is coming to an end. So I'll just reuse the best quote that immediately comes to mind for attempting one last time (in vain?) to demonstrate that the divide between these "two types of knowledge" is not what I was discussing: <br /><br />"Thought is as much a lie as love or faith."<br /><br />If anything, just think about it.Nath Osmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05071068896312078851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-48196976330134473642018-01-02T15:20:23.592-05:002018-01-02T15:20:23.592-05:00I believe you may have misunderstood what I was in...I believe you may have misunderstood what I was intending to communicate with respect to deconstructing everything into “technical minutia”. I’m not claiming deconstruction should never occur, nor that it invariably yields no benefit. Rather, I’m saying that in the context of conversational discourse, it's impractical and unhelpful to attempt to inoculate every statement against such deconstruction. <br /><br />For example, suppose someone states “I have a special love for all things blue”. One could respond, “What do you mean by “love"? What constitutes “special”? Is it the things that you love, or their blueness, or both? Given that color is merely a subjective perception of reflected light, can you even make the claim that those things are in fact blue? And what are you really referring to when you say “I”? Where do you draw the line in the sea of continuous atoms between you and the things in question?”<br /><br />All of those responses are totally valid. But if every sentence is deconstructed in this way, or if in anticipation of such every utterance or writing sufficiently defines and qualifies their communications accordingly, then much of basic and effective communication breaks down. So one must make some degree of allowances in the context of casual discourse. And this is not to say that I object to the deconstruction that you performed - I'm simply making an observation as to why the statements / words you were deconstructing were prone to such.<br /><br />I do share your sentiment regarding artist’s kinship. I would point out that not all writers are artists, but granting that you intend to refer to those that are, artistry (in whatever category it happens to manifest) inherently entails a certain awareness / recognition of self and/or the world that is not necessarily present in the non artist, but certainly is present in the philosopher…there is a shared confrontation with the abstract and the unknown, and a shared pull to explore for its own sake.Zack Hemseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-84041678316905737032018-01-02T15:20:04.640-05:002018-01-02T15:20:04.640-05:00Regarding your response to the comment you quoted ...Regarding your response to the comment you quoted from me, I don’t think it’s unbearable to pursue, nor do I fear the fruits of what such lines of inquiry have the potential to bear…but I maintain that such is irrelevant to the artist’s endeavors (i.e. expressing that which they are compelled to express). It may be rewarding nonetheless, or even influential moving forward, however if one is motivated by the desire to uncover the truth about why they are who they are (or why they are the way they are) so as to gain some kind of control over their artistic nature / preferences or reprogram their nature (which is what the other commenter to whom I was responding initially appeared to be alluding to), then I would say such efforts are misguided. But all lines of inquiry have the potential to be worthwhile.<br /><br />I see nothing at odds with concluding that any historical / existential knowledge one believes they’ve obtained with respect to why they like what they like is unverifiable…it’s not possible for it to be anything more than theoretical, since there is no objective way to test / prove the validity of the purported knowledge. Again, this doesn’t mean it has no value - just that it wouldn't constitute factual knowledge (perhaps you could consider it subjective knowledge though). I also understand that I will never understand everything that can possibly be understood, due to the limitations in our capacity (e.g. learning time while having a finite lifespan, memory retention, etc, among other considerations)…there is nothing contradictory or at odds about this. <br /><br />There are different types of understanding. So when you state - “I am an artist, and I declare that I do understand myself / artistry” - the nature of the understanding to which you refer is ambiguous. Do you mean you know who and what you are? Or do you mean you know why you are who and what you are? Do you mean you understand what your preferences, desires, inclinations, etc are? Or do you mean you know how your preferences, desires, inclinations, etc came to be formed? One of these types of knowledge is within reach, while the other much less so (if at all). Additionally, one of these types of knowledge is instrumental in orienting one’s actions (at least for maximum impact and/or fulfillment), while the other much less so (if at all). So I certainly would make the same declaration as you, but only with respect to one of these types of understanding.Zack Hemseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-53337763558783551432018-01-01T16:06:14.996-05:002018-01-01T16:06:14.996-05:00(apologies, comment got placed in wrong spot, here...(apologies, comment got placed in wrong spot, here is second attempt)<br />Whatever, it might be necessary to briefly throw in a couple of examples to illuminate what the heck I was talking about in the middle there. So take as point of departure a famous quote from Joseph Conrad's Lord Jim:<br /><br />“It is when we try to grapple with another man's intimate need that we perceive how incomprehensible, wavering and misty are the beings that share with us the sight of the stars and the warmth of the sun."<br /><br />It's critical to keep in mind the..somewhat flawed depending on how you see the narrator..layers involved in writing such a thing (including that narrator, plus the author, and the reader, and their interplay). He is not longwinded: he simply states the above, with some cues to help us comprehend what he's aiming at; and in admitting one incomprehensible thing he is elucidating the point, rather than heading the direction of endless "debatable technical minutia." This power IS art/artistry.<br /><br />Further, just expand to the work of, say, Kafka...or Albert Camus (The Stranger). Or back up to today's Paul Auster and his utterly unexplainable but in some special way understandable plots or characters and what they touch upon - points made with parcity of words, in direct OPPOSITION to the path of "endless" "longwinded" "debatable technical..." etc, but only via the utilization/grappling with of that same path:<br /><br />"No matter how many facts are told, no matter how many details are given, the essential thing resists telling. To say that so and so was born here and went there, that he did this and did that, that he married this woman and had these children, that he lived, that he died, that he left behind these books or this battle or that bridge – none of that tells us very much.”<br />from The New York Trilogy<br /><br />And is it any surprise, then, that he reevokes in his own words the same notion from my first quote (Conrad's) of this comment:<br />“All men contain several men inside them, and most of us bounce from one self to another without ever knowing who we are.”<br />(notable is the obvious shift of focus onto our own selves)<br /><br />Expand to music if you like. Maybe think about Scriabin or Shostakovich and what points and influences they made and had up to the present day. In the opposite direction, go back merely to Liszt, whether or not you believe he compromised his artistry, and recall the humorous occurrence of listing his occupation as "musician-philosopher" when checking in at a hotel.<br /><br />Or to philosophy, and, skipping over vast swaths just to get a glimpse of one of many results of the paths philosophers took, one of many earth-shattering aphorisms of Emil Cioran:<br /><br />"Thought is as much a lie as love or faith."<br />(pointedly enigmatic, and pointedly to the point)<br /><br />Finally, (skipping over the enormity of countless other examples), as it so happens, we return to Lord Jim, for some final words to clarify what I was aiming at.<br /><br />“My task, which I am trying to achieve is, by the power of the written word, to make you hear, to make you feel--it is, before all, to make you see.”<br /><br />At the same time, regarding the absurdity, the uncertainty, the folly...he UNDERSTANDS:<br />“It is my belief no man ever understands quite his own artful dodges to escape from the grim shadow of self-knowledge.”<br /><br />Whether it is rich irony, or the narrator's or creator's own flawed expression, whatever you get out of that, whatever you get out of all of this...here (above) are artists embracing the double-edged sword. Do they hesitate or stumble? No. It is that double-edged sword of absurdity/uncertainty that leant them, or that they snatched up disregarding the knowing peril, the power to create the art they did, be the artists they were.<br /><br />I felt it worthwhile to provide this attempt at clarification.Nath Osmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05071068896312078851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-25630090463039790962017-12-31T21:03:32.629-05:002017-12-31T21:03:32.629-05:00So, feeling close to the same page, I can try to d...So, feeling close to the same page, I can try to drive my point home.<br /><br />While conversational indeed, this is a response more directly for you, rather than intended to be shared and discussed like a reddit thread. I hereby ask that you not take too conclusively / seriously what follows. <br />But first, this: no, don't revise the main text, as it is not aimed at the audience who already comprehends it; nothing further can be done to clarify your point and intent (it is yours, but I believe your message is clear; changes won't alter who does or doesn't "hear" what you're saying).<br /><br />Your message is born out of some "hope" (drive, urge, desire etc.) of yours that MAY be comprehendible but not "really" communicable in the sense we've discussed. You indicate you realize this. Is such realization necessary to avoid compromising artistry? No, probably not (idk - may be beneficial). But it is also a mistake to conclude what you propose would come of pursuing this realization. Instead, it can be a certain way of seeing, which is ingrained in my nature. The former way of going about it (what is "the world" etc.) can be fascinating - but for what I'm after, this is a sort of red herring. It isn't the only way. I will refer to a different comment (shortened below obv) you made in order to explicate:<br /><br />"Do you love this particular music because of the composition, the performance, the attitude, the instrumentation...or because of...you’re never going to truly know...as any such knowledge would be unverifiable."<br /><br />A conclusion at odds with itself. My mind shouts "rethink it!" You say all that, along with what you admit in your final paragraph of your last comment, and still cast it aside as "misguided", "irrelevant"? What are you afraid of? That it appears futile, unbearable, to pursue? Yet you see it. If it is true, then it is true. If you understand, then you understand. Stop running from it. I say to you, that from this "well" of apparent existential absurdity I draw greater strength. From this, some philosophers and writers may draw their ENTIRE strength, their whole purpose in the world! I am an artist, and I declare that I do understand myself / artistry and do not shy away from the dual bolstering/perilous effects of grappling with this "absurdity". And imagine how many artists might agree. I daresay you'd declare the same. In fact, you said it yourself in a previous comment: <br />"So once I understand what artistry is...such clarity allows me to be more effective in my creative pursuits."<br /><br />You may have been saying it inwardly for years without realizing what it was. You see this unknown. I say rethink its value. It has likely been implemented by you already to great effect. Hesitate before casting it aside. It does NOT prevent understanding.<br /><br />I ask that you try not to draw absolute conclusions about my attitude or thoughts. I admit I am uncertain - and who I might be without the role this uncertainty has played across my life, or without it at all, disturbs me...were its power, positive or negative or whatever it is, removed from this world, what would we [artists] be? Would we?Perhaps all that sparked my first comment, that hypothetical regarding artists and entertainers - and some crucial element I felt was missing - lies herein: something, I believe, ties the artist and their nature as kin to writers and philosophers, more so than to entertainers - from whom they are cut off at some pivotal point, not to say philosophers/writers aren't often artists, but that the artists among all classifications may share something ingrained in their nature that is inaccessible to all non-artists. That is why I heavily support the "nature of the artist" portions of your text as most significant - though your entire message is necessary. My qualms were never about your overall message.<br /><br />I thank you for your well-written text, your art, and your thoughtful nature: it is invaluable.Nath Osmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05071068896312078851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-66904051206602023382017-12-26T22:47:17.552-05:002017-12-26T22:47:17.552-05:00Thanks for that clarification. Now I’m seeing the...Thanks for that clarification. Now I’m seeing the disconnect between what each of us are saying.<br /><br />My statement “One might be tempted to conclude…that I am insinuating artist are superior to entertainers. This is not so!” was not intended to be received as an objective assertion that artists are not superior; rather, it was intended to clarify that I am not making the claim that they are superior.<br /><br />That being said, it is my opinion that artists aren’t superior, for the reasons stated in my previous response…but that is a purely subjective assessment, irrelevant to the article’s main points.<br /><br />Some of this confusion also seems to be stemming from the conversational nature of the article / commentary, which can perhaps be at odds from a strictly technical or academic standpoint. For example, my use of the word “need” in “the world needs both artists and entertainers” is not meant in any strong sense - as you pointed out, the world in actuality doesn’t need these things at all (certainly not from a survival standpoint, nor many other standpoints); however I’m really using the word in a looser sense to mean “benefits from”. This of course remains a subjective assertion, but the basic notion I was (perhaps poorly) attempting to articulate is that, to the extent one desires a world (i.e. society and/or the collective of human consciousness) that is optimally fulfilling and/or rich and/or rewarding in its entailed experiences, then it needs / requires a diverse and balanced creative ecosystem (which is not to say that having such is itself sufficient to achieve that end).<br /><br />Of course, arriving at a consensus of what "the world” is, what it “needs” (if it even needs anything in the first place), etc is probably as doomed as arriving at a consensus of what constitutes good or bad art (or art itself perhaps). I don’t think it’s realistic to be able to inoculate every text from being deconstructed into debatable technical minutia, and if it is possible would probably lead to an array of longwinded texts full of constant qualifications and clarifications that render it a misguided exercise. Discussion in general would become unbearable, as no one would end up being able to say anything, or at best it would take so long to say it no one would still be paying attention by the time you got done saying it, haha. But I do get where you’re coming from, and it nevertheless might be worth me revising the text to better communicate the above.Zack Hemseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-24682340057439753362017-12-26T14:55:56.205-05:002017-12-26T14:55:56.205-05:00It's unimportant and this isn't the right ...It's unimportant and this isn't the right place to discuss it so I've deleted it.Nath Osmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05071068896312078851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-35197828934533835612017-12-26T14:47:23.830-05:002017-12-26T14:47:23.830-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nath Osmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05071068896312078851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-3189522471325978842017-12-25T23:07:45.571-05:002017-12-25T23:07:45.571-05:00If you believe artists are superior to entertainer...If you believe artists are superior to entertainers, so be it. But if your intention is to persuade me that this is the case, you haven’t presented any argument to that end.<br /><br />I am pointing out the disconnect between the way the dictionary defines the term artist, what that term typically conjures to people or is meant to conjure (as far as I can tell), and how its use in practice is plagued with confusion. So my intention is to detangle the above by precisely delineating what the term entails. If in your view, that equates to me intending to become the dictionary, ok. <br /><br />Not sure why I would need to excommunicate you from being defined as an artist, especially since one can’t objectively know if you or anyone else is an artist - I can only infer based on your statements and actions - but you certainly know and can proceed accordingly :)<br /><br />I fail to see the blunder in asserting that artists are not superior to entertainers (and you have failed to articulate it, if indeed there is one). My assertion is not based on notions of equality or “everybody’s a winner” type of rationality - it’s based in the fact that the characteristics of artists and entertainers are different, that those characteristics lead to different outcomes, that each of those outcomes has the potential to be positively or negatively received, and that such is entirely subjective. Thus, there is no objective basis from which to assert superiority. If you are claiming otherwise, you must clarify on the basis of what metric artists are superior.<br /><br />I would grant you that notions and/or examples of entertainers that often come to one's mind are nauseating (from the perspective of the thinker), however I would caution against blinding one’s self to the outcomes in which entertainers (or craftsman) make truly compelling art. In the reverse, I would caution against blinding one’s self to the outcomes in which artists make terrible art - they may be artists, but that doesn’t guarantee what they have to express is automatically compelling. While there is an objective difference in the mindset of an artist vs entertainer, one’s evaluations of their resulting art is subjective. <br /><br />With this in mind, I feel the need to reiterate that the importance of artistry and understanding the different functions artists, entertainers, and craftsman serve, is that they all have different potentials, which can be realized or not realized. Thus, the world benefits from a balanced creative ecosystem. Of course, it is genuine artistry that currently appears to be the endangered species, but I would resist the temptation to conclude that if the roles were reversed (with entertainers being endangered) there would be no downside…maybe, maybe not.Zack Hemseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-77155432706685149132017-12-22T04:50:49.789-05:002017-12-22T04:50:49.789-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nath Osmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05071068896312078851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-22569878194884665222017-12-14T04:28:42.632-05:002017-12-14T04:28:42.632-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09032565940334939660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-12317100422969903252017-12-12T23:37:49.991-05:002017-12-12T23:37:49.991-05:00If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re highlig...If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re highlighting the value and/or necessity of an artist being in touch with why they like what they like, and possibly purposefully engaging whatever those underlying reasons or mechanisms are. If my understanding is incorrect, then disregard what follows :)<br /><br />For the purposes of creating new material, understanding how your subjective preferences historically came to be what they are is not necessary…you simply have to be able to recognize what they are now, and go from there. Of course, in the present, it is extremely helpful to be in touch with why you’re reacting in a certain way (e.g. I’m not liking X because Y), as that understanding positions you to adjust / revise your creation accordingly…although I suppose this is not always necessary, as one may not be able to pinpoint the roots of their dislike or like, while still being able to progress (but the more an artist creates, the less likely this possibility becomes, as translating one's emotions and then tracing / mapping them onto the counterparts that give rise to them is a skill that improves, as far as I can tell).<br /><br />A historical and/or existential understanding of why you like what you like might be relevant to the extent that one was concerned with evolving and/or escaping their preferences or patterns. But again, I don’t see it as being necessary, as one can simply make a point a expose themselves to things outside their bubble.<br /><br />Regardless, it strikes me as quite impossible to come to anything other than a superficial existential understanding, as there are so many variables that interconnect to create the impressions we receive. Do you love this particular music because of the composition, the performance, the attitude, the instrumentation…do you love it because it was on the radio when you had that first kiss…or because your parents loved it…or because you simply heard it repeatedly growing up? Or do you hate this particular music because of all those same reasons? What mood were you in when you first heard song A (and why were you in that mood)? What music had you heard prior to listening to song A, and how did that entrain and/or impact your experience of song A? Etc, etc, etc. I would argue the answers to all of these questions are really quite irrelevant (from the standpoint of an artist’s endeavors). Maybe there are concrete answers, or maybe you just like what you like having nothing to do with anything…you’re never going to truly know, as any such knowledge would be unverifiable. If you could go back in time, and change this to that, and alter your experience over there, would your resulting value system and preferences be different today? Possibly. So what? We are where we are. It’s where you’re going from here (artistically) that matters.<br /><br />That being said, I have found that an artist's creative preferences are prone to evolve as a consequence of what they’ve done before. Speaking for myself, once I’ve thoroughly explored a given territory (musically, lyrically, or conceptually), that territory simply no longer entices me, and I go on in search of new territory. That is not to imply I don’t like what I did before - just that I’m not driven to continue exploring it. And this doesn’t mean I used to like rock music, and now I don’t, or vice versa. All of what you like outside of your own creations may still hold, but the elements you find compelling within your own creative efforts can change over time, in response to those very efforts. In genuine artistry, there is a constant feedback loop between the artist and the art, each influencing and shaping the other. <br /><br />As for valuing what the masters push as significant, it depends on what you mean by value. The artist can value the opinions / analysis / insights of others (master, expert, or otherwise), whether or not they share them. But if by value you mean, “does the artist hold sacred and profound that which the masters push as significant”, I would say only to the degree to which it genuinely resonates with them.Zack Hemseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-22895600802831743012017-12-06T08:37:00.255-05:002017-12-06T08:37:00.255-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09032565940334939660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-85896606349445026862017-07-29T14:17:56.267-04:002017-07-29T14:17:56.267-04:00Thanks for such an entertaining and colorful note....Thanks for such an entertaining and colorful note. Of course, having read the above article (its shittiness notwithstanding), you surely realize that to cater to your demands by creating what you want to hear, rather than that which authentically resonates with me, would certainly invalidate my artistry. Not to mention, that having your respect, approval, and/or adoration is the least of my concerns. And of course, to grant a request of the high standards you have outlined, as well as to satisfy one endowed with such tremendous self-importance and entitlement as you most evidently are, is without question beyond the capacity of the super lazy whose company I now find myself in. While I can’t say I’m sorry to have disappointed you, I can say I’m happy to have appalled you so profoundly, my dear friend.Zack Hemseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-10913664580065061302017-07-28T22:49:04.582-04:002017-07-28T22:49:04.582-04:00So, I heard NOMAD. Horrible. 0 out of 10. You'...So, I heard NOMAD. Horrible. 0 out of 10. You're super lazy; super repetitive. How could the man who made Mind Heist: Evolution make this? Honestly man, as a FORMER fan, I couldn't believe my ears as I was listening to the album. You have been an immense inspiration to me since the moment I heard MHE. I studied Mind Heist, was inspired by the nuances and attention to detail. But my brother, NOMAD is a piece of shit. Your vocals are inaudible. It's mixed horribly. I can't hear you and your voice is super monotone. Your rapping is banal. You have no idea how much respect I have lost for you, my dear friend. Please follow the template of Mind Heist, Greeting the Menace, and Silver Crimson Black for all future productions. I can't believe it. AND BY THE FUCKING WAY, you can still hear the vocals in the instrumental version of NOMAD. Release the album you're capable of releasing and stop being a lazy fucking hack. It's a disaster; I am ABSOLUTELY APPALLED. Make Mind Heist 2 like I said to you before. Love you, have always loved your creativity. But not anymore. I expect to hear improvement in all future releases. Put the same effort you put into writing this shitty ass blog into your MUSIC<br /><br />Btw, I am very thankful for all the inspiration that some of your songs have given me. I'm genuinely hoping to be inspired by your future creationsStephen F.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-39673020782946822382017-07-16T23:51:41.534-04:002017-07-16T23:51:41.534-04:00Sorry if I mischaracterized your response…your sta...Sorry if I mischaracterized your response…your statement that the term artist “is like a free pass to perpetuate terrible ideas” seemed extreme to me, but more relevantly, reflected a misunderstanding in my view of what it means to be an artist (which has nothing to do with having good or bad ideas, or making good or bad art). Again, I think the only valid definition of an artist is someone whose creative motivation is based solely in what will lead to the best art (in their opinion).Zack Hemseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.com