Authenticity and Art What does it take to be a writer of fiction? Are there certain technicalities that are absolutley necessecary to have in order to be elevated above the writing of a layman? Do I need sophisticated grammatical structures and a voluminous vocabulary? Without these, without technical depth, does one not fall into the trap of a Bukowski? Ignored by critics and academic scrutiny? Is this indicative of shallowness? Does it matter if that is the case as long as the central necessity, that of authenticity and artistic merit, is reached? What does it take to perform such an act of authenticity? Self confidence and confidence in your work Every great artist whether they be a depressive or one perennialy filled with optimistic exaltation has necessecarily been stubbornly confident in that work that they do which they deem to be of great value. One can be the most timid and unconfident nebbish but when it comes to his art, and when he feels in his heart that it is good, he is the most confident man in the world. There are many things in this world that gnaw away at ones character, that hold back the confidence which everyone deserves to achieve for themselves and one of these things in identification. Like when a friend or acquaintance, perhaps someone you look up to, expresses a negative opinion of something you love and you take great offence to it, you take it as an affront to your very being. Some people seem to like the idea that the self is made up simply of the aggregate of it’s persuasions and tastes but this seems wrong to me. If everybody else in the world hates Mulholland Drive, or thinks that Kundera’s “The Joke” is trash why should that effect my liking or not liking it? Wasn’t the original reason for liking it so far away from the evaluations of others that that has the least effect on my opinion? What if I did at one point like something that for good reason is evaluated as bad art by someone knowledgeable or genuine enough to make that appraisal? I’ve certainly indulged in things that were objectively bad (If I can use that term, and I do wish to use it) regardless of the purity of the emotions and experiences I attempted to validate in them. I should simply listen to their argument for it (if they are presented at all, through rational discussion or experiential example) and change my opinion or not when convinced or not. Apart from reevaluating my tastes, the worst react ion of all is to take it personally. To identify with my tastes. Our tastes change, they are not our essences which by definition don’t change, and if you want to make the argument that we have no essences or that nothing at all has an essence then all the better. Identifying with anything at all would be the most stupid thing to do on that account. Not being able to think for oneself is another of the great ills to the self confidence necessecary for an artist (or for any person of authenticity). If you are not convinced of things by intuition or rational argumentation but instead are bullied into positions by social concensus or fear sowed by malicious actors then you are nothing but an automaton. You will never be able to be confident in your positions (not certain however, everything can be overturned and the confident person knows this) as you depend on others to tell you whether or not something is right. Institutions have their own agenda, when you enter one you give up the reigns and let them steer the ship, but noone can steer another persons ship rightly. Learning occurs through empathy, anger cannot deal with the subtilties of self transformation, and only individuals are capable of empathy not institutions. These things erode self confidence. One could suffer the greatest indignities carrying boulders back and forth in a concentration camp b ut as long as they have control of their mind and soul they will know that it is wrong and never be convinced otherwise. Do not confuse this with happiness or contentedness that is something alltogether different to confidence. Depth and insight The last thing one wishes to be is a shallow writer. You can be as miserable or as exuberant as you want but something in between must be represented. The heights of despair and the mundanity of happiness along with the excrutiating low and the blissful high. The world thrives on paradox, and our reaction to it is simmilarly paradoxical. What would we have left to do if we could reduce it down to essential principles like a logical positivist might desire to. It’s not that one desires to be intentionally obscure or to hide ones lack of insight; the insight is the ignorance, the knowledge is that of ones ignorance. Kurt Cobain sad he wanted his lyrics to be a mashing together of emotion, and that was the insight. Never has anyone experienced any one thing at any one time. It is our human desire to isolate which is in conflict with our experience. The moral of the story is supposed to be open ended because it would be shallow and lacking insight to give a final answer. Complexity Complexity is the toool of insight but it is not limited to technicalities. Vocabulary or grammar might be useful in a particular situation to elucidate the insight but it could just as easily have been acheived by complexity of thought or description. Love Art is built on love. A love for passion. A love for emotion. Emotion is the soul of action, it drives thought and it drives concrete action. Without it noone would ever have put pen to paper (even the shallow writer or the writer who does it only for money seeks money or fame for a deeper reason, the writer of insight simply removes these proxy drives). Even the most pessimistic of all have a passion for their pessimism. For all the paradoxical declarations of destruction Cioran it was passion that made him do it, love for unlove. One who truly hates existence ceases to exist. tags: writing, creativity, confidence