A jewel of Advice for the Creative Soul

christabelll

Too...Gone Baby Gone
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Posts
1,801
Removing the Veil of Consciousness/Embracing the Transformation

Last month I had the pleasure of catching Gilberto Gil in concert at
Carnegie Hall. Now, Carnegie Hall seats 2,804 people. Gilberto Gil, in
the August of his career, strolls out to a full house and sits on a
diamond shaped, raised platform surrounded by a glass of water, his
guitar, and an extra guitar (presumably just in case he pops a guitar
string and needs a spare. That's it: no back up singers, no back up
vocalists, no lights, no drama; just him and his guitar.

I felt, as I felt when catching Lorna Simpson's retrospective at the
Whitney, how wonderful it is to be an artist who can devote their life
to speaking in her or his own voice. More than the money or the fame
(though I'll take both in varying degrees), the ability to create, to
spend a life creating, and then mount those creations to a public that
gets it and appreciates your work seems like a luxury to me. It is a
luxury I want to experience in this lifetime.

Of course the external view of something is never quite like the
internal view of it. Walking around dreaming about the day when you
can have the whole floor of a museum to fill with whatever kind of art
your imagination can conceive brings a veil of consciousness to the
creative process that wedges between the artist and the art. This
veil—a hyper-consciousness of sorts—may make the process of creation
torturous, pressing the artist to judge her every stroke, impulse, or
line. The veil may force a certain tone or approach the artist has
deemed lucrative or deep or counterculture or whatever. But worst of
all, the veil may block the artist from ever letting her bodies of
work come to life.

More than thinking about learning to write better or be a better
artist, I've been meditating on how to get out of my own way. Just
today I found my way on up-and-coming vocalist Alice Smith's myspace
page. She was ruminating on the concept of soul music and she said,
referring to Björk, "the music there told me wow, that's really her
soul there. I thought about her a lot, about the sound of her music…
well it isn't exactly about the sound…. Her music made me contemplate
her soul."

On the one hand, it is about the sound. You have to figure out how to
make sounds and how to put them together and how to record them and
distribute them, but on the most profound level it isn't about the
sound; it's about the soul bleeding through the sounds; it's about
putting the sounds in the service of the soul.

I thought about the uniqueness of the soul when I heard the sounds
coming out of Gilberto Gil's throat. If you've ever heard Gil sing,
you know he likes to vocalize—his vocalizations are nothing like
scatting, they are more like sighs and cries and bird sounds and
creative little twists and turns of the voice that aren't notes, at
least not notes anyone would sit around and think of or write on a
piece of paper to represent a certain emotion. At the concert, I
marveled at his sounds, some of them discordant and odd, and
appreciated how they were just his special and particular way of
expressing himself—it was Gilberto Gil's soul coming out in sound.

So many of us artists come to the page or the canvas or the clay or
the studio or the theater needing the art to be something, do
something for us. Our art can't just be an expression of life, it has
to be us; it has to prove that we are viable, fresh, creative,
cutting-edge, profitable, sustainable. We need it to earn us money so
we can come back to the page or the canvas or the clay the next day
and the day after.

When the artist grapples with who she is as an artist and how she
relates to her art and what it means to create art, the need for the
art to shore up the pocketbook and the ego can get the better of us;
it can pin us down to the mat and start to define us and our
connection with our work.

Gilberto Gil is a prolific songwriter and poet. He has one song whose
lyrics I am fascinated by. I've called people and told them about the
lyrics to the song and they ask: what does that mean? I tell them I
don't know. It's not that I don't know what it means, it's that I
can't say. The central metaphor of the song speaks to me so profoundly
that its impact can't be measured in words. (Maybe I should just let
out a Gilberto Gil-like groan when someone asks me what the songs
mean.)

It's a relationship song, titled "Drão." Working around the metaphor
of the seed, he celebrates love—not as a joyride in a stolen car, but
as a hard walk down a long dark road; as a deeply transformative act
that requires much stretching and growing and turning inside and out.
The song is about a romantic relationship, but, for me, it's about me:
the artist and my relationship to art.

Gil sings: "Drão, our love is like a grain/A seed of illusion/It has
to die to sprout. Once planted/Our hard seed resuscitates in the
soil."

I'm like an evangelist singing the gospel to my friends, my brilliant
talented and tortured friends who are also not writing their novels or
taking their pictures or making their shoes. I want to open a church
for artists; fling the doors open wide and shout: Kill the romance,
kill the ego, kill the high visions about what your particular brand
of artistic genius will bring to the world. Kill what you think you're
creating about, and then just create. Let that dead seed of
what-you-need-art-to-do-for-you resuscitate in the soil of creativity.
Water what sprouts and let it grow.

I have decided I've got to write this novel. And because my life is
currently all about survival, I'll write like it's one more necessary
task for my survival. I'll stop thinking about it as the first step
towards my salvation from ordinary life; or the foundation of reaching
the above-mentioned luxury of spending all my time creating. I have
taken a vow to work on my novel like I do the dishes; like I wash
lettuce; like I feed my daughter; like I play computer games before
bed (not like I'm fulfilling my destiny; not like I'm being brilliant;
not like I'm solving a problem; not like I'm doing what I should). I'm
vowing to write like I breathe.

Again, I turn to Gil's "Drão," in which he says, "Don't think of
separation/Don't trouble your heart/True love is vast, it extends
infinitely/It's an immense monolith, it's our architecture." Except
it's not "true love" I'm thinking of as vast, it's art and my ability
to produce it. The great wellspring of creativity that is my very
architecture. To crawl around writing tentatively, fearful that what
I'm writing is not compelling enough or brilliant enough, investing
the act of writing with my own ideas of what it means to write. The
act of writing (or making any art) is what it is, and I need only
plant it someplace and let it grow.

The road is anything but easy. Human beings are just so darn creative
at creating difficulties, complications, blocks and obstacles. Part of
the story we tell ourselves is that it needs to be brilliant the
moment it materializes from our thoughts. In insisting on instant
perfection we trample on the process, the flowering of our own art. We
reason that we must know the end when we begin. We must see the
brilliance, it must dazzle and perform. Forget all that madness, Gil's
lyrics sing to me.

No the road is not easy, but the road need not be easy to be true.
"Drão" acknowledges the pain, embraces transformation, praises the
process, however hurtful it may be, because as Gilberto Gil figures it
"if love is like a grain, then when it dies it is reborn as wheat and
when it lives, it dies as bread."

Be well. Be love(d).

Kiini Ibura Salaam
 
Seems like a long meditation on how the author's not going to meditate on writing any more.

What did I miss?
 
Yes thats true but...

Actually there were some real pearls in there about honoring the creative process itself...
not just what it could do if you became rich/famous/infamous

She/He did go on about how they weren't going to "stress" anymore...
but the underlying message was, I believe about letting the trappings of the creative process go, and simply creating for the sake of creation.
 
I love your responses :)

Yeah thats what I am talking about :)
Fabulous pros cons agreements and disagreements and embroideries on a theme.

Babylon 5 - The universe is a live conscious being. We are expressive creations of its conscicousness. The more we come to know ourselves, create ourselves, the more aware and conscious the universe becomes....D'len of the Membarri Grey Council.(really bad paraphrase for an intricate concept)

I posted the "letter" because it speaks on a lot of different levels, whether we all get even one is beside the point... IMHO...

I get so stressed sometimes about my "art" whether its writing, painting, drawing, creating period clothing or simply speaking eloquently. I forget sometimes to just let it happen. Then go back and tinker with it. Sometimes 99.99% gets chucked out but that remaining .01% is a piece of brilliance.

Henry Miller in the Tropic of Cancer (or was it capricorn) said something about the fact that we squash 98% of our creative process as inappropriate, socially unacceptable or what have you. In our efforts to conform to the world around us, we lose the honest moment of inspiration. He went on about the crystaline spider that ran back and forth between the hemispheres of our brain... but the kernal for me was that we really do subconsciously limit ourselves to the point of being dullards. We are anything but that, however we are trained to ignore or forfit our most brilliant thinking processes in order to fit in. to not disrupt the norm.

Its a sad fact that painting will only profit .5 % of the painters of the world.
Writing will only see 300 authors published a year. etc etc
but our creative process, our expressive outlet of our internal soul-self, can sustain us emotionally, spiritually. It can wipe the boards clean or clutter them hopelessly, but it frees us to continue regardless of who else might be viewing it.
It assauges angst, it sooths sorrow, it inspires, titillates, teases, angers and remorselessly holds a mirror up for anyone brave enough to look into it.

For myself... I never really understood that I could paint until I simply sat down and followed the impetus of my spirit and mind to paint what was in my head.
I never understood that I have a unique writing style whether its poetry or erotica or some long and drawn out story spread across 1100 years. I didn't know I could create farely accurate period clothing until I made myself figure it out and do it. (4 shots of vodka and a full night of dancing and sex helped with that LOL that is a story in and of itself LOLOLOL).

The main thing is that I had to give up my "training" that I couldn't be the next Sharon Shinn or CJ Cherryh. OR the next costume designer for a revoltionary movie... or the next Raphael...

In the words of Hoobastank...
I am not the next of them
I am the first of me
 
Gotta disagree with the constraint thing.

Art isn't just expression, art is communication. If your evolution has taken you above the mundane and left the lumpen behind, just who is it that you're going to communicate with?

Your 99.9% of inspiration doesn't disappear, it isn't made of phologiston, it doesn't even get chucked out. What happens is that you have to connect it to make it real. you're just not capable of making that connection. (You as the Jungian archetype not you personally)

Like the difference between what we call 'good' sci-fi and fantasy. If you can't give it a universal basis then it's fantasy and virtually incommunicable as a reality.

The guitarist on a bare stage relaying their art has tens of years of dirt shovelling behind them upon which to build that simplicity. In very much the same way as Isaac Newton 'stood on the shoulders of giants'.

So no, striving to make more than .01% understood isn't a waste of anybody's time or effort because without that other 99.99% there wouldn't be any .01.
 
christabelll said:


I'm like an evangelist singing the gospel to my friends, my brilliant
talented and tortured friends who are also not writing their novels or
taking their pictures or making their shoes. I want to open a church
for artists; fling the doors open wide and shout: Kill the romance,
kill the ego, kill the high visions about what your particular brand
of artistic genius will bring to the world. Kill what you think you're
creating about, and then just create. Let that dead seed of
what-you-need-art-to-do-for-you resuscitate in the soil of creativity.
Water what sprouts and let it grow.

I have decided I've got to write this novel. And because my life is
currently all about survival, I'll write like it's one more necessary
task for my survival. I'll stop thinking about it as the first step
towards my salvation from ordinary life; or the foundation of reaching
the above-mentioned luxury of spending all my time creating. I have
taken a vow to work on my novel like I do the dishes; like I wash
lettuce; like I feed my daughter; like I play computer games before
bed (not like I'm fulfilling my destiny; not like I'm being brilliant;
not like I'm solving a problem; not like I'm doing what I should). I'm
vowing to write like I breathe.


To me, there's no way this person, all tangled up in their intellectual concepts concerning the Artist and His or Her relationship To His art and His or Her Place in the Creative Process, is ever going to be able to sit down and write a novel the same way they do the dishes. And if they did, I just can't believe it would ever have the kind of spontaneous and unstudied simplicity they're hoping for, the kind of thing they admire in Gil's work. Because I don;t think Gil stumbled into his simplicity by just letting go. I think he labored long and hard to find that voice. The great ones always do, and then they make it look so easy that we all say, "Hey! I could do that!" and we try to imitate them. But believe me, he didn't learn to do that by dashing off songs on the backs of envelopes while he was doing the dishes. He sweated blood over them.

Jack Kerouac was another writer who prided himself on his Jackson Pollack style simplicity. He considered himself a jazz musician improvising in language, never editing, never revising - a "spontaneous jazz prosodist" who wrote on long rolls of paper so he wouldn't have to be interrupted to change sheets of paper. Everything had to be done spontaneously and without second thought.

Except he lied. Turned out he revised extensively in order to give his prose that spontaneous, effortless feel.

I'm just suspicious about writers who spend more time writing about their writing than they do writing.

We do quash a lot of our creativity, but a lot of what we quash is probably not very good to start with. My erotic terrorist story probably needed a good quashing, as did my idea for an autobirography of a cunt. Good ideas are rare enough to come by, at least for me. Really good ideas are as rare as miracles. I'd hate to live in a world where the bookstores are filled with books about erotic terrorist stories and cunt autobiographies. Not everyone should be an author just because they can type. Not every story is good just because someone wants it to be.
 
Hehehee I really am loving this....

anything worth doing writing painting etc is worth doing as well as we possibly can.

I do try to be very good at what I do
I am aware that most don't see it that way
thats them :)
I shock myself sometimes with what comes out of my head and heart
but then again I shock people that I breathe so thats easy LOL

Overall I liked the piece because there were some very salient points in it....
Over working a piece, under working a piece just Doing it instead of censoring every other bleeping word that tries to flow through.... gratned its good to do that later but get the stuff out first then expland or delete as needed :)

its the squashing that bugs me the most
and anymore its not that I squash the creative impulse
I just recognise that I am not always up to portraying what my mind/heart/spirit etc is trying to express through my falible hands

Any way....... heheheheheheheheh its all good
 
dr_mabeuse said:
... I don;t think Gil stumbled into his simplicity by just letting go.
...
I'd hate to live in a world where the bookstores are filled with books about erotic terrorist stories and cunt autobiographies.
Love your thinking, every bit of it here.

Scanned the bright blue blather, saw the appropriately gauche critic rearing his politics (again ;) ), then read your refreshing take. Thanks, Doc. :rose:
 
Makes me think of a title of the book, Don't Block the Blessings. It's an autobiography of a musician, I think Patti LaBelle. We simply do angst too much instead of doing. We block the blessings through our own thinking. :rose:
 
Grushenka said:
saw the appropriately gauche critic rearing his politics (again ;) )

:confused: (What you seem to have read, isn't what I wrote.) (You scanned past the part where I said what Zoot said, not in so many words.)

Edited to add: It was 'lumpen' that threw you wasn't it?
 
Last edited:
dr_mabeuse said:
To me, there's no way this person, all tangled up in their intellectual concepts concerning the Artist and His or Her relationship To His art and His or Her Place in the Creative Process, is ever going to be able to sit down and write a novel the same way they do the dishes. And if they did, I just can't believe it would ever have the kind of spontaneous and unstudied simplicity they're hoping for, the kind of thing they admire in Gil's work. Because I don;t think Gil stumbled into his simplicity by just letting go. I think he labored long and hard to find that voice. The great ones always do, and then they make it look so easy that we all say, "Hey! I could do that!" and we try to imitate them. But believe me, he didn't learn to do that by dashing off songs on the backs of envelopes while he was doing the dishes. He sweated blood over them.

Jack Kerouac was another writer who prided himself on his Jackson Pollack style simplicity. He considered himself a jazz musician improvising in language, never editing, never revising - a "spontaneous jazz prosodist" who wrote on long rolls of paper so he wouldn't have to be interrupted to change sheets of paper. Everything had to be done spontaneously and without second thought.

Except he lied. Turned out he revised extensively in order to give his prose that spontaneous, effortless feel.

I'm just suspicious about writers who spend more time writing about their writing than they do writing.

We do quash a lot of our creativity, but a lot of what we quash is probably not very good to start with. My erotic terrorist story probably needed a good quashing, as did my idea for an autobirography of a cunt. Good ideas are rare enough to come by, at least for me. Really good ideas are as rare as miracles. I'd hate to live in a world where the bookstores are filled with books about erotic terrorist stories and cunt autobiographies. Not everyone should be an author just because they can type. Not every story is good just because someone wants it to be.


The best compliment I receive after a solid musical performance is when someone says, "Wow, you made that look so easy! You were really having fun up there!"

I always smile and say thank you.

And I think, "Yep. That's what you were supposed to see."
 
dr_mabeuse said:
Because I don;t think Gil stumbled into his simplicity by just letting go. I think he labored long and hard to find that voice. The great ones always do, and then they make it look so easy that we all say, "Hey! I could do that!" and we try to imitate them. But believe me, he didn't learn to do that by dashing off songs on the backs of envelopes while he was doing the dishes. He sweated blood over them.
I agree.

A Danish poet once said that the artist is a strange beast. While "ordinary people" are (at any point in time) either spontaneous or deliberate, the artist has to be both at the same time. Art is both intuition and hard work.

Or like some French poet (Baudelaire) said: "The first line is a gift from the gods. The rest is bloody hard work."
 
gauchecritic said:
:confused: (What you seem to have read, isn't what I wrote.) (You scanned past the part where I said what Zoot said, not in so many words.)
Edited to add: It was 'lumpen' that threw you wasn't it?
:D Yep, and 'dirt shovelling'. Good on you for remembering it was Newton.

Hopefully it's obvious I enjoy teasing you.

p.s. Lesson learned (on my exercise thread): GC doesn't take criticism easily. ;) Therefore, expect more. :p

p.p.s. phologiston threw me too.
 
Grushenka said:
:D Yep, and 'dirt shovelling'. Good on you for remembering it was Newton.

Hopefully it's obvious I enjoy teasing you.

p.s. Lesson learned (on my exercise thread): GC doesn't take criticism easily. ;) Therefore, expect more. :p

p.p.s. phologiston threw me too.

Naa, criticism is usually the only way I can connect with anyone. Which is why my threads are so vague and questionless.
 
Back
Top