Writing Is Not Independant

     Hey, there! There is quite a bit of reading today, but it's simply my vision of art. So if you carry on reading, thanks! (you're my favourite)

     I have a topic I would like to discuss today, and it's about art. Mainly writing, but it can be extended to my general beliefs about art and aesthetics. Basically, there's this notion that seems to be out there that once something has been created, it is then outside of the artists' hands, and the art is free to be grabbed by anyone appreciating that art to make of it what they like. I would thoroughly like to rebuke anyone who believes this.

     Focusing on the written word, basically, I have mentioned previously about my thoughts on poetry, and quite frankly, with a few tweaks, the same principle should stand for other forms of writing. It is fine if people want to read between the lines, make their own spin off fan-fics and come up with their own theories about the universe you've created - but they cannot freely interpret the things you've actually written however they like. What is written is written as a work of the artist. What and how you write is a reflection of your art, and as a result, you can make ideas subtle so that they mean a different thing after the second and third time, you can make a line ambiguous so as to specifically cause doubt to the reader, but that is all in your control. Any writing that happens outside of the writers control, quite frankly, is bad writing.

      Now, I know all I've done is state an opposition for no real explanation why - so here's the point. Art is created by artists and it's the artists people remember, when people know of the best art, they usually are aware of the creator because that is important, it allows people to seek other works of theirs. If the work is free on it's own, that would enable people to freely take a work, read it, assume it is something entirely different to what the author wrote and a) the work would then not be memorable or good, and b) there would be no need for the author. By saying work is free is like saying 'everyone have an imagination, that I have skill is not important.'

     Writing is a vision of the author. It has a focal point brought about by the author, so good art should carry it's intention directly to the reader's brain. The notion of the writer adds extra depth in figuring out the story, and sometimes adds that extra excitement about guessing where they'll go next because through your work, people get a grasp of you, without knowing anything about you.

     I think this idea is a much more beautiful and professional idea of what is good in art and generally should be practices more often. Because you have to make stuff that average people don't fully get, and make things that most people cannot make themselves. Make what you want to make in a way that only you can. When a comedian stands on stage and makes vague humour that everyone can appreciate, that is not good art, it's trying to be liked, it lacks skill and appreciation and oft times they will be forgotten as quick as they rise. Artists are who are remembered, not their independent works.

     Now I would like to see more similar things happen in music, in that popular music is all focusing on trying to make lyrics that people can relate to, so that people apply it to themselves and like that song. But where is the artist in this? Where is the songs of old that tell stories, personal works that only you can do? We need more music about scenarios and reflections upon the person who made the music. Stop making me think about me, and let us hear about you, you wonderful creators of art.

     Okay, so maybe that last part is a personal desire, but do you see, generally, how much nicer this would be, art being made for art by artists rather than vague masses of forgettable mess? Stop making generic work, and hold it as your own work. Art is the artist, not the work itself.

     Ciao for now.