First, thanks to everyone who has contributed to my talk. As I wrap up the writing and start the rehearsing, I’m grateful for your comments and your e-mails.
Final question:
The image of the lone, visionary artist is a powerful one in our culture, even if it’s a recent (post-Baroque period) invention. Do you believe in one person’s ability to change the world with their work? Or has postmodernism/relativism/Internetism changed all that?
Final thought:
I realize these questions are abstract as all get out. Promise the show will be more grounded in example.
Thanks and take care,
Dennis
Advertisement
Hmm. Perez Hilton is unfortunately my first example of a person who changed the world with his art, also Nick Denton, but basically what they did was prove you could make People & Page 6 faster than the People & Page 6 could, which will eventually lead to People & Page 6 going away, or shrinking.
Some argument could be made that Tony Kushner, David Chase, or Alan Ball changed the world, at least slightly, changing what we think is possible of theater or television, but more often than not I’d say the world changes the artist. I don’t think that’s an internet thing, even the most romantically regarded lone artists, say Van Gogh or Renoir, didn’t really change the world, they just changed their field, which is hard enough to do.
If “change the world” = temporarily affect how large groups of people talk/think about a certain idea/genre/form/etc. … yes.
If “change the world” = permanently alter the trajectory of global human culture… no.
How would we know?
I know it’s late in the game, but in regards to this question, I’d like to draw a parallel if I may. In questioning whether it is possible for one person’s work to “change the world”, perhaps it would be easier to consider the question in the context of job less ethereal than “artist.” What about…an inventor. An inventor of a new technology, for example. An inventor’s job is to take his/her knowledge of his/her area of scientific expertise, and use it to identify a problem that needs a solution, and further use his/her expertise to develop a technology that solves said problem. Sometimes that invention affects a few people, like the housewives whose lives are vastly improved by the washer and dryer… sometimes an invention affects the world at large, as with the advent of the airplane. The same can be said for artists, only an artists’ area of expertise is the world, and human interpretation of it. If the artist wants to affect human interpretation of the world, he/she invents a new form, voice, even new words to do so, and the effects of that “invention” can affect the way of life of a few (the folks who read your high school literary magazine) or many (everyone who saw and was affected by Tina Fey’s interpretation of Sarah Palin, perhaps).
Still, while I agree that many smaller artistic movements have occurred in recent years (aided by technology, incidentally), in terms of massive, “world-changing” artistic movements, it’s been awhile. But does it sound at all reasonable for us to say that there is no room left in the world for inventions of new technology? – that there will never be another earth-shattering, world-changing invention for the rest of human history? I would argue that the same can be said for art. The only difference is that art isn’t taken as seriously as a “tool” or a technology. AND – what a coincidence, technology isn’t considered as interesting or entertaining as art. My personal belief: that this is the new artistic movement — connecting art with technology, science, and all the other facets of human information, so that art can become just as relevant, and “facts” just as moving. Site: SEED magazine, Proust Was a Neuroscientist, your book Head Case, anyone who’s ever won the MacArthur Fellowship. Maybe postmodernism, internetism have rendered Art mute when considered alone. In order to make new meaning, an artist must think like an inventor, a scientist, a doctor, and whoever else DOES get heard these days.
I would say the simplest answer to this question is the least qualified and it is also my answer:
Yes.