My Process

A conceptual artist name Sol Lewitt wrote that "Perception of ideas leads to new ideas." I really hope he's right because I intend to struggle with my perception of ideas for some time.

Unable to think of a poetic or humorous transition, I'll just say Emily Dickinson is credited with writing over 1,700 poems. Most of these poems are between 8 and 16 lines. Is this impressive? Is she an impressive poet? These are two different answers. And I believe this because it is unfair to say a piece of work has more artistic value given its process, I think. Instead of 20th century literature, let's look at some movies.

Some of the greatest reviewed movies of all time were the most plagued by difficulties. Did the films become great because of their process? Or despite their process? Of course some difficulties indicate the movie is just bad (I'm looking at you WATCHMEN). If a movie was incredibly difficult or easy to make, does that even slightly alter your opinion about said movie? Or how about this: Separated by less than a year, THE MATRIX had the same production budget as WHAT WOMEN WANT.

/\

That's right:
these two films cost the exact same
\/

Does that make either movie more or less impressive? I'm going to cut out a lot of what I wanted to say to just hit the conclusion. Art can be impressive in process and in conclusion. A lot of conceptual and performance art is dedicated to the process, I think. But I would also say many movies are more dedicated to the process than conclusion. Many of the most popular movies are the most expensive. They are the most expensive because they are dedicated to the process of having realistic unreal elements (whether that be dragons, robots or A-list actors). But you can not buy originality, emotion or cerebral interest.

If a left-handed Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa right-handed, would you like it more?

Now if I were to write 365 short stories in one year, would that be more impressive than 200 equally good stories? Or 50? Or 10? Of course. Not writing a story doesn't help anybody. But on a side-by-side comparison the 365 stories are not individually as good as the 10. Perhaps the 365 stories bundled together speak stronger as one voice, as one piece; but I fear they are all only seen as one. The stories are like people; they don't see themselves as a bundle, they are individuals. Some may be related through over-lapping characters, but they should be able to stand alone.

And let me answer many questions I posed earlier: artistically, I only care about the process of art when it affects the conclusion. Process can be interesting in itself (ex: if a movie cost $500 million, that'd be interesting) but it speaks nothing of the movie or other artwork.

Process without meaning is nothing and I see it all around me, high budget or no. A technical or physical achievement does not add artistic value. Some people create so they can say they created. This is no different than saying, "the only absolute in the world is that this is the only absolute in the world." Congratulations, you have contributed nothing.

I am not going to write 365 stories, or 365 poems or blogs. I will not write a novel of the sake of writing a 500-page story. I will not write a feature-length script for the sake of saying I've now written twelve of them. I will not write when I have nothing to say. I hope the days will continue, but I am making the promise now, I will only write when I have words worth being read...and let that be my process.