Lately, I've been trying to placate my artistic, individualistic soul which grows impatient when the self-sacrifice required to work within the monetary economy, collaborate with others for social change, nurture and educate they young, and keep the health inspector away from my door seem to be taking up every waking hour. I experience an inner rebellion of the desiring Subject--who doesn't like to be subject, not even to me, for very long.
I have a great deal of respect for this part of me because it likes to think of itself as my identity. It insists that I am primarily an artist/writer and everything and (sorry) everyone else comes after this force which will have its way. I feel guilty for permitting its eruption when, in the grand scheme of things, saving the earth and its inhabitants from climate chaos and corporate rule seem to have higher stakes than writing poems and essays and creating things by hand.
And yet, the kind of world in which I may do these things is the kind of world I want to live in. It is the world I have fought for and continue to fight for and that others have fought for in previous generations. It is the kind of world I hope others want too, because I would fight with them to achieve it for all of us. It is my end of the revolution and you can't have a good end to a revolution unless you have been practicing it all along already. Otherwise, you overthrow the bad and achieve a vacuum --which nature (and, apparently,) corruption abhor. Mao described the unprepared revolutionaries as they who "lift a stone only to drop it on their own feet."
The women's movement was partly about breaking the martyr mentality, but it didn't stop us from martyring ourselves in the name of the social movements we wanted to see happen. Is individuality somehow incompatible with radical feminism? Or is it the quintessence of the anarchist?
For Emma Goldman, this sort of thing came up in her relationship with Alexander Berkman. He was annoyed when her suitor of the moment bought her a red velvet cape and wanted to take her out dancing. Berkman thought she was being extravagant and decadent to spend money (even someone else's) out on the town and on frivolous self decoration. To be fair to him, he was willing to risk all his freedom and possessions for the cause and they had had a previous love affair, so some jealousy may have been involved. This was the incident that prompted Emma to say, "if I can't dance, I don't want to be a part of your revolution." For her individuality and fun were part of what she was fighting for the freedom to have--not just survival, but a good, enjoyable life. Women are particularly vulnerable to over-volunteering and we have been taught that it isn't nice to be too selfish.
On the other hand there is a lot of cliched cant on the women's talk show circuit about putting yourself first, blah, blah, blah. The problem with this is--really-- it depends. What do you do in your "spare" time? There really is nothing very admirable in women with lots of privilege making time for themselves. Okay, so maybe, we really do need to draw the line between self-expression and care and self-indulgence. You see, I can't entirely get away from the puritanical suspicion of selfishness, self-indulgence, self-centeredness, vanity, and consumerism especially when the "me" time requires lots of efforts from others--stylists etc.
So, while I sit here judging the privileged who contribute to the economy employing people even when they are having a spa day or vacation, I am feeling judged by others for appreciating time in solitude for "studio." Even Emma's "self-indulgence" was social. How much more socially unacceptable it is to enjoy yourself alone. So, now I turn to Virginia Woolf for guidance. I hope there is someone nearer to me in time, but I can only think of "A Room of One's Own" when I think of the celebration of and woman's right to her own domain. A place where she can educate herself, think, dream, create and be. At the end of this, the artist/writer has a creation to share and this object will have its value perhaps, not because it was tailor made for someone, but because it was the autonomous fulfillment of one desire that longed to satisfy itself into being.
Art in whatever form is miraculous for the simple reason that it is imagined and made real one piece at a time all by the same person. Of course, I'm aware of collaborative art. Yes, it can be empowering and exuberant. But, it is a variation on the primary form of art that is an original "non-alienated labor." Yeah, I know I'm giving post-structural theory a hard time when I assert that individually made art is the original against which interpretive, collaborative, industrial, pop arts are distinguished. But, this is intended as a description of the cultural unconscious rather than a historical claim. Some of these other art forms deliberately raise the question of the definition of art in changing cultural contexts of production with the going assumption that the definition of art is that of a self executed unique work. It's empowering to collaborate in order to bring about a shared vision. It is also rewarding to create from scratch something you alone have imagined. It doesn't require a lot of expense, but it requires collecting materials and an investment of time which may not pay off in social change or pocket change.
So, is art decadent? Essential? Magic--something wrought from nothing? Selfish? Fulfilling?
Most of my environmentalist friends are eschewing the material while putting their energies into a great social movement, while I find myself holding the material closer, making it myself, making it my own. How much more local can you get?
In the end, I know I will go back and forth. After all, during the years when my child was younger, I seldom went anywhere or did anything social or worked on causes I cared about. I was isolated and pent up, ready to get out in the world and make a change. When I arrived on the scene, I discovered a community that also cared and was good at organizing. It has been an inspiring experience to work with such excellent people. I know I will continue to work for change and work with my favorite groups and people, but I find it hard finding balance, not over correcting one way or the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment