>“We can’t worry about meaning. Ari proposed to us that meaning is a consumer item. Some people manufacture it through religion, philosophy, nationhood, politics, and some people buy it. But an artist is not a manufacturer.”
How do you writers feel about this sentiment?
What is an artist then?
Some say they are sieves for insight/vision of the place where intangible concepts like "poetry" derive, those "celestial spheres" we only get flawed intimations of. I think you could argue in this metaphor that artists are neither producing or, more certainly, manufacturing anything.
lol like I give a fuck what a genre director thinks about art or creativity. He isn't even a real writer. He just leeches off of novelists and screenwriters. No he hasn't ever actually created anything of worth. He made formula horror and science fiction movies. The last watchable one was like 25 years ago. The fuck outta here.
A clairvoyant
I dunno about that man. Cronenberg sounds a bit more patric (pronounced patrish) than you.
Maps to the Stars is great tho. I mean a Robert Desnos poem is central to the plot. Pretty Parrish.
I am gonna watch this tonight. I've heard good things. Looks like a great cast.
Pretentious waffle
Meh, if you're so boring to say so then sure. You can see these ideas mentioned in Percy Shelley's essay about Poetry, spoken about often in other places about poetry too.
also on an essay by Ben Lerner called "The Hatred of Poetry" he touches on the celestial spheres idea. If art is a product or something that is manufactured, people should be in constant disappointment with it that it is not utter sublime perfection, and demand a refund as they would with any disappointing purchase.
more interested in what writers think about the idea of providing meaning, rather than the Veeky Forums-phil nitpicking about classifying artists.
Artists don’t provide meaning; they coax it out of the audience. They’re more conjurors than manufacturers.
I like this perspective.
Been thinking a lot about such responsibilities in my own writing. Your post has given me some to consider.
bump
The only meaning that could possibly exist is, "Man is called forth to God."
If this is not true, then nothing is, and nothing matters, and you don't exist.
>Some say they are sieves for insight/vision of the place where intangible concepts like "poetry" derive, those "celestial spheres" we only get flawed intimations of.
Artists should be trying more than most of the population to be able to comprehend and educate others about these celestial dynamics because their work is centered around an entelechy of their imagination that is uniquely positioned to better share it than most. It doesn't have to be overt, but it does need to be privately comprehended by the artist in question, if that artist wishes to be great.
If an artist only stops at thinking themselves a passive "sieve" of sorts to these powers without ever working toward applying and growing an active consciousness of them then they'll remain an artist at a fraction of potential.
lit is an atheistic board.
(You)
Also interesting. Thank you for sharing this.
this is some absolutely retarded ontology user
lol like I give a fuck what a Veeky Forumsposter thinks about art or creativity. He isn't even a real writer. He just wastes his life being a pretentious faggot who will never get anything published. No he hasn't ever actually created anything of worth. He made half-assed uninspired stories and 'philosophy'. The last readable one was like never. The fuck outta here.
He had a book published only a couple years ago. Fiction. I've read it.
You're stupid and plebian!!
Oh wait, if this wasn't you quoting the wrong dude and was just satire about that guys post my b.
why did my comment get deleted? cronenberg is more patrician than anyone on this board
I remade the thread after it 404d last night. I remember your statement, and I believe you are right.