As a kid I loved Hardy Boys books, the Oz stories, Rootabaga Stories, The Wind in the Willows, Stuart Little. As much as the words, I loved the pictures—so much so that I have added a small gallery of illustrations at the end of this post. When I was young, I didn’t ask myself why I so enjoyed my travels through Oz or the cities and Great Plains of Carl Sandburg’s
In the artistic community, we all need to cherish our freedom and protect it, indeed.
May I add a thought: The Dadaists ands Surrealists pursued a special directive. They sought to create works open to interpretation, so the viewers had the freedom to see, while these creators allowed themselves to draw out, compose and arrange variations. Umberto Eco has presented this theoretically as "The Open Text". It seems possible to dictate openness so audiences can enjoy more freedom in response. I feel a perplexed fascination and inner awakening when I see , hear, read such works.
A provocative thought, this idea of creating something with the deliberate intention of inviting interpretation. Understanding what it means to be a participant in the creative process is far above my earlier way of thinking. I feel, as I grow older, I have experienced an evolution in my love of the arts, and I am both grateful for this new sense of understanding and weirdly ashamed of myself: for being so limited when it comes to my worldview, when I was young.
To my fellow Wind in the Willows fan.....thank you for this is terrific piece! I especially love the bit about Warhol, "As a commercial artist, he had been much appreciated for his willingness to make all the revisions an art director might require. As a fine artist, he was as despotic as John Paul Jones. So is any serious painter. " Having been in the commercial world, while always maintaining my own art practice, I can relate to this as I'm sure many other artists can. Making one's own art is an all out, no excuses, direct experience of expression without a care about anyone's future critique....or so it is for me. Art making: a zone as free the imagination can manifest...ahhhhh, relief!
Hi Sherry, what about Nancy Drew? Not to mention the Oz stories. It would be interesting to try to figures out when art and freedom became intertwined . . . it must have happened when artists or some artists began to make art without any concern for a patron . . .
Yes, an interesting question "When did art and freedom become intertwined" I'd say at the beginning of humankind. I'm sure the creators of Nancy Drew and the Oz stories had their own struggles for and with freedom of expression given their circumstances. We all know that patrons go way, way back, Durer, Vermeer, Michelangelo had them, as that was the system then, their means of making a living. Yet all of those artists, Durer, Vermeer, Michelangelo still did their own work, free from any money exchanging hands....so we must stay creative, present, and engaged in life in it's totality.
I love this conversation on many levels. I wonder if those great artists of history who were fortunate enough to be commissioned by the church or wealthy patrons, and kings, considered their commissions as mere occupation; a way to care for their families. Then, in their free time, they drew and painted just for themselves; "a day off" to experience the pureness of doing what you like. The ultimate freedom to make a living as an artist; to have the time at last to paint what they really wanted to paint, or carve and write. I wonder, if there is a way to tell just by looking at a piece all these centuries later which is which? Are the time off images more joyful, more colorful, more free compared to what was commissioned? From what I have read, Mozart composed his comic pieces- pieces of great levity and joy- on his days off so to speak.
Thank you Carter, for reminding me of Robin Williams. I remember watching an interview with him where he claimed his creativity was something he just plucked from the universe; mirroring the words of William Blake who often spoke the same way. Your wonderful images of favorite books took me back in time to my favorite routine of reading to my baby brother at night; both of us conjuring up images in our respective imagination, then, comparing what we pictured in our minds to the illustrations. I ruined everything when I became obsessed with comic books and we switched from what was imagined to what we were told: the drawings, the colors, the tiny framed works of art made the story a secondary consideration. Your discussion on the line between autocracy and democracy was finally obliterated, when reading Mary Shelly for the first time, long after Boris Karloff and his silly outstretched arms. What magic, what power, lies in that carefully measured blend of words and pictures.
That is an amazing image, you and your brother comparing pictures inspired by books . . . And Mary Shelley . . . I feel that she is not only a great Romantic, alongside her husband, but one of the greatest writers of the modern era . . .
In the artistic community, we all need to cherish our freedom and protect it, indeed.
May I add a thought: The Dadaists ands Surrealists pursued a special directive. They sought to create works open to interpretation, so the viewers had the freedom to see, while these creators allowed themselves to draw out, compose and arrange variations. Umberto Eco has presented this theoretically as "The Open Text". It seems possible to dictate openness so audiences can enjoy more freedom in response. I feel a perplexed fascination and inner awakening when I see , hear, read such works.
Thanks to all those emphatic freewheelers !
A provocative thought, this idea of creating something with the deliberate intention of inviting interpretation. Understanding what it means to be a participant in the creative process is far above my earlier way of thinking. I feel, as I grow older, I have experienced an evolution in my love of the arts, and I am both grateful for this new sense of understanding and weirdly ashamed of myself: for being so limited when it comes to my worldview, when I was young.
To my fellow Wind in the Willows fan.....thank you for this is terrific piece! I especially love the bit about Warhol, "As a commercial artist, he had been much appreciated for his willingness to make all the revisions an art director might require. As a fine artist, he was as despotic as John Paul Jones. So is any serious painter. " Having been in the commercial world, while always maintaining my own art practice, I can relate to this as I'm sure many other artists can. Making one's own art is an all out, no excuses, direct experience of expression without a care about anyone's future critique....or so it is for me. Art making: a zone as free the imagination can manifest...ahhhhh, relief!
Hi Sherry, what about Nancy Drew? Not to mention the Oz stories. It would be interesting to try to figures out when art and freedom became intertwined . . . it must have happened when artists or some artists began to make art without any concern for a patron . . .
Yes, an interesting question "When did art and freedom become intertwined" I'd say at the beginning of humankind. I'm sure the creators of Nancy Drew and the Oz stories had their own struggles for and with freedom of expression given their circumstances. We all know that patrons go way, way back, Durer, Vermeer, Michelangelo had them, as that was the system then, their means of making a living. Yet all of those artists, Durer, Vermeer, Michelangelo still did their own work, free from any money exchanging hands....so we must stay creative, present, and engaged in life in it's totality.
I love this conversation on many levels. I wonder if those great artists of history who were fortunate enough to be commissioned by the church or wealthy patrons, and kings, considered their commissions as mere occupation; a way to care for their families. Then, in their free time, they drew and painted just for themselves; "a day off" to experience the pureness of doing what you like. The ultimate freedom to make a living as an artist; to have the time at last to paint what they really wanted to paint, or carve and write. I wonder, if there is a way to tell just by looking at a piece all these centuries later which is which? Are the time off images more joyful, more colorful, more free compared to what was commissioned? From what I have read, Mozart composed his comic pieces- pieces of great levity and joy- on his days off so to speak.
Thank you Carter, for reminding me of Robin Williams. I remember watching an interview with him where he claimed his creativity was something he just plucked from the universe; mirroring the words of William Blake who often spoke the same way. Your wonderful images of favorite books took me back in time to my favorite routine of reading to my baby brother at night; both of us conjuring up images in our respective imagination, then, comparing what we pictured in our minds to the illustrations. I ruined everything when I became obsessed with comic books and we switched from what was imagined to what we were told: the drawings, the colors, the tiny framed works of art made the story a secondary consideration. Your discussion on the line between autocracy and democracy was finally obliterated, when reading Mary Shelly for the first time, long after Boris Karloff and his silly outstretched arms. What magic, what power, lies in that carefully measured blend of words and pictures.
That is an amazing image, you and your brother comparing pictures inspired by books . . . And Mary Shelley . . . I feel that she is not only a great Romantic, alongside her husband, but one of the greatest writers of the modern era . . .