Art doesn't die but it does decompose
I've unfortunately been thinking about Timothée Chalamet more than usual this past little while. Naturally, his name has been strewn across headlines and reddit threads since the release of Marty Supreme last December, but in the classic tale of actor foot-in-mouth disease, his interview clip about the waning popularity of opera and ballet has hit a nerve with many. Also me, it has hit a nerve with me. Literally you could offer a man millions of dollars to simply shut the fuck upppppp and he'd go broke! Every! Time! Still, for both of our sakes, I'm not going to spend much time talking about who made the statement. To be honest I'm mostly using this dumbass take to explore where my mind has been tunneling since it came out. I'd much rather ramble about the sentiment he was speaking on: are humans responsible for keeping art "alive"? Or further, does art have the capacity to die?
“Cause I admire people, and I’ve done it myself, [who] go on a talk show and go, ‘Hey, we gotta keep movie theaters alive. You know, we gotta keep this genre alive.’ And another part of me feels like, if people wanna see it, like ‘Barbie,’ like ‘Oppenheimer,’ they’re gonna go see it and go out of their way and be loud and proud about it. And I don’t want to be working in ballet or opera, or things where it’s like, ‘Hey, keep this thing alive.’ Even though it’s like, no one cares about this anymore. All respect to the ballet and opera people out there. I just lost 14 cents in viewership.” (Chalamet, Variety/CNN Townhall)
Man, seeing it written out is even more embarrassing JEEZ. But I wanted to include the full quote for reference in case you've only seen the buzz words. Immediately my brain began asking the questions above that prompted this post. I've heard variations of the same concept of the death or impending collapse of art but if you really stop to think about it, can art die? I think many would argue that nature itself is art, especially in the ways naturally occurring phenomena manifests. Is a tornado art? A volcanic eruption? I don't know how someone could deny the artistry of the Northern Lights or a solar eclipse. These phenomena live on past their fleeting moments by permanently altering the natural world, much in the same way man- made art permanently alters society by inviting discussion, contemplation, or even vitriol. I guess the beginning piece of my thinking is classifying art's origins. Namely, does art require human intervention to be art?
Part of the problem is the forced defining of art, something which inherently rejects formal definition. Humans constantly try to force labels or definitions onto massive concepts which realistically are far more lucid in nature. Art is messy (at least when its at its best imo). Labels are rigid and unforgiving; wholly opposite to the cracks and crevices where the best creativity is found. After doing a little digging I've primarily seen art and nature placed on opposite ends of a supposed spectrum. I find this reoccurrence really fascinating since I don't know if I believe nature to be the logical antithesis of art. But if not nature, what would it be?
Lately, some might say technology. Most definitions of art stress the necessity of human intervention, and to a certain extent that sentiment rings true to me. I've seen this argument used in particular in criticism of AI-generated "art" to undermine its classification as artistry. While I agree that AI slop is trashy, lame, and overall an embarrassing pursuit, it's never actually been art. You can't remove a label from something that never had it the first place. Intention is where I believe art's meaning can be found in its most earnest form. Autotune was demonized as cheating for its ability to improve vocal tone and alter sounds inorganically, but in hindsight it's a crossroad of art and technological innovation. It's something humans created to further expand on what we could do with the ideas in our minds. In this example, human touch is what makes the art, but this is because computer programming is already a human invention. A computer cannot generate art alone, which is proven by generative AI's consuming of artists' work to spit out something vaguely similar. Computers are a man-made product, meaning they cannot understand the whole experience of being alive; of being a flicker in time on this earth. They are designed to be abnormally infinite.
As my title suggests, this isn't to say art is unlike technology in its ability to outlive humanity, but rather that the manners in which they do so are drastically different. Art embraces decomposition; it aches, bleeds, sweats out of our pores each in a unique way from a unique perspective. As humanity has evolved, so have the methods of creation. One of the oldest remaining pieces of art is a 67,800 year-old hand stencil, created in an Indonesian cave off the coast of the island Sulawesi. Long after those artists and their descendants' have passed on, this humble creation remains. Those stencils are a different expression than the sculptures of Michelangelo, the poetry and prose of James Baldwin, or the medium-bending world of Gorillaz to name a few across generations. They're all different because life is always moving, and the ways the world expresses itself break down and rebuild again and again and again. Oftentimes, especially now, genres blur, mediums blend, and unique "strains" emerge in places you'd never think possible. Art is a direct response to life. Trees know what it means to live, and the rings of their trunks reflect years thrived, or even years of struggle. Birds create beautiful nests to call home everyday on instinct, weaving the natural world into something not only functional, but distinctly theirs and uniquely beautiful.
The original stencil is circled, barely there underneath still ancient but newer drawings... crazy shit.
To me, the logical antithesis of art is death, just like it is for life. Art itself cannot die. Artists do, like everyone else. But their work remains from even the smallest impact. I do love a good butterfly effect when it's not traumatizing like that movie! Albeit a little gruesome, the idea of art decomposing and rebuilding brings me comfort, especially during moments like this where I'm afforded the privilege to write rambling opinions online for you all to read. While art forms shift in popularity and profitability, I hope as artists we can all remember that while our time is limited, what we leave behind will long outlive us and those that come after. What I create and put into the world will define me for longer than I ever will during the time I have here, but that's the point. We offer our passions to an unforgiving world, and if we're lucky that passion will break down and seep into the earth for someone else to dig up.
SOOOOOOOOOO, ballet and opera will be just fine. But you already knew that. Those guys are hardcore as fuck. I'm just glad you took the time to read this since I'm quite proud of the results. You don't have to agree with me, and in fact I'd love to know how you see the relationship between art and humanity. Heavy subject I know, but it's good to be a thinker and think a good lot!
See you probably another time this month but I make no promises,
PJ