Yogi Berra, “It’s not over until it’s over.”
Is the possibility of reasonable change possible/predictable OR is Chance a possibility, which cannot be predicted reasonably or for that matter logically? Can Flux become a common component in all possible outcomes without any reliance on Reason or Logical predictability?
With Flux the permutations of Change are everchanging to Infinity in an infinitely expanding universe. Possibility is the endless thread on the galactic journey to Infinity when Change is fluxible and everchanging. Then reasonable becomes unreasonable and vice versa, thereby defining Homo sapiens, as a fluxible part of a boundless, everchanging reality in space and time on a planet that is in a constant state of Flux. (MJW)
The Critical Response to the Artistic Works of Others in our Society.
An artistic expression which is foreign to our understanding and appreciation is not an inferior creation for that reason alone. We can argue that there are universal standards whereby we measure our response but we cannot say that it is inferior because it is foreign to our upbringing or even irrelevant because it presents situations which are foreign to our values.
There is a distinct tendency in the West, however to discard the works of others for being beneath our intelligence. This attitude is reinforced by our so-called experts: academics, writers and critics, who far too often refer to other writing(art)as indigenous, primitive, folkloric, peasant expression compared to the historical, colonial values in our society.
Therefore, even the theories elicited by the likes of a Margaret Atwood in Canada [Survival] have become self-indulgent and nationalistic themes that can be considered elitist for comparing our historical literature(art) to today’s creativity by newly arrived others as inferior.
Perhaps her historical, survival Victim has become today’s Victimizer because as theories and societies evolve yesterday’s Victims are replaced by new Victims, who are foreign to the original Victim’s values.
The controlled output of the ideas to be consumed by the masses is the major form that this Victimization assumes.
The perpetrators of this measuring cup of ideas become the new purveyors of artistic expression in our schools and media and might even assume that their profundity is close to godliness, even unshakeable.
But don’t criticize a critic, who rides first class at the artistic gatherings where a glass of wine buffets a cordial response. But we do know that tastes can change suddenly. However, can these established messengers of greatness respond responsibly to the works of others with the same commitment? Unlikely, because critics are usually outsiders in the dance of the imagination where their own insecurities become the voices of their artistic and verbal inferiority. No more wine in the ballroom unfortunately but maybe a microbrew, dim sum or yak milk will suffice!
We live in a closed society and as such we must begin to recognize our limitations/abilities in order to understand/appreciate the new, artistic others. Likewise, these others are expected to adopt our artistic values sometimes at the expense of their own so that we assume that they have begun to accept, even believe that our ideas are absolutely correct and all others are wrong.
Nationalist themes without regret and the new world order in place.
Fact, Fiction or Fake Truth! It’s your choice. (MJW)
Defending the Individual’s Opinions on Art & Criticism
In order to understand the human condition in an artistic expression and where it can lead the observer, it is necessary for the observer to understand the artist’s intrinsic values.
We all possess individual qualities and attach varying degrees of importance to these values. Moreover, it is next to impossible to achieve a perfect marriage between an artist and his observer with respect to these values. Yet we expect ourselves to accept these differences as reasonable. But ask yourself whether it is reasonable or necessary to do this? I would say, “No, for it is nonsense.”
Instead I believe that our differences should be the fundamental premise upon which we search for meaning and understanding. Surely it is more realistic for the individual to say, “I AM.” Rather than “WE ARE.” From here the conviction that an individual brings to his argument is his meaning and his truth. And given the urgency with which some people incorporate your best ideas- you can remain aloof and apart, if you frequently tell yourself that your differences are laudatory and of your own making. This is also the beginning of your relationship with the creative spirit because you recognize another’s creativity through your own appreciation of their expressive stories. Far too often you are told about an artist’s achievements, in producing a body of work but I believe it would be more appropriate to accept your own ability to interpret their creativity. The imbalance that presently exists is based upon the false notion that you should revere an artist’s works whereas I believe it is more reasonable to respect your recognition of their work. This humbling experience might then allow you to disregard cliques of self-minded and self-centered experts who care little for the ideas of others unless they can represent these others, absolutely. Freedom of expression is essentially the freedom to resist the conformist values postured by mainstream, media critics and retain the respect and individuality that your opinions will likely incur. Their denial is not your failure or the artist’s, as long as you feel comfortable, challenging their exclusive mandate. Only shame or ridicule can prevent you from saying otherwise.
Author: Michael Walsh
Michael J. Walsh is a retired professor from Sheridan College in Oakville. He has also been actively involved in Canadian book publishing here and in the United States, the UK, Europe, and China since 1967. He co-founded Mosaic Press in the early 1970s.