Art exists within a framework. And however we choose to define it, the boundaries will move a bit, this way or that, depending on the generation and culture in which we live. There is always a context that impacts the particular place we draw the circle around “art”.
It’s also helpful distinguishing between “pleasure artists” and “critical” artists. The later, working in the context of other’s expectations. The former laboring from their own.
One tiddlywinks player knows how the game has been used by others (its history, nuances, performance art uses, etc) while another may be ignorant of all or part of these going’s on.
Let’s say our player nows bits and pieces of the context - but doesn’t care. Is his work meaningless because it doesn’t fit within the system? Or is it the whole system that is meaningless, because, after all, it IS tiddlywinks. Or (a third possibility) would be that it is of value solely, and for no other reason, than it gives him pleasure and the satisfaction of feeling that he has accomplished something?
And I suppose that’s the real question: Does he really accomplish something just because he “feels” like he does? With no other confirmations attesting to that fact? Is his feeling of satisfaction justified?
We’ve all had the sense of satisfaction that comes from skipping a rock across the water a certain number of times. Is that a false and phony notion? Are we justified in turning to the child, who reaches her “skipping goal” and saying to her, “Way to go!” as if the child has accomplished something worthwhile? Should we treat the act as pointless? Or is its value in the fact that it can serve to symbolize to the child how she may succeed at “real” goals and purposes later in life? Is it just a confidence builder?
It reminds me of the old story about the artist who took extra care with his work at the top of a church steeple. He was questioned about the value of doing this when no one would see it. “God will see it” is supposed to have been his reply. If we nod our heads to this tale, agreeing there is some truth to it, then why not say the same for our tiddlywinks player? And our rock skipper? If God takes pleasure in unseen spirals, then why not unrecognized (not part of the system) games and odd skills? Since the individual involved takes pleasure performing them?
The guilt-driven part of me wants to say, “The tiddlywinks man should be out helping orphans and widows instead of wasting time!” But if we follow that reasoning out, I think we wind up giving up art and any other activity that doesn’t fit into the lowest ranking of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Who are we to tell the artist he’s wasting his time, because he doesn’t attempt to fit into the system of social rewards that we’ve decided to invest in ourselves? We stomp our foot and complain, “How dare he not play OUR game!” Are we actually concerned about him and his time? Or are we really just defending our own investment, acting out of the fear that we may have (partly) wasted our own time and energy?
I’m reminded of Eric Liddle who’s story is told in “Chariots of Fire”. He said, “When I run, I feel His pleasure.” Is this a worthy response, only when the speaker has an Olympic medal handing on his chest? Or it is just as true, when our impassioned runner is slow, awkward and has no audience or purpose? Not even “getting into shape”?
So, at the moment I think I have left myself without much ground for looking down on others for creating, what is in my mind “pointless dribble”. But I’m sure I’m still morally superior, of course. I’m just not sure why.
Stephen Goforth
