I used to believe that from my influences came my art. That even just one specific book, or other artist, or album could inspire me to create something beautiful. It was always just one specific thing I would strive to draw from, literally. Pun intended.
I know, now, that this is quite false. I have tripped over this ideal for many many years. Thinking to myself, "Self, you must read about X artist and from that derive your own ideas". This is not correct thought and is not logical.
My urge to create cannot be one piece of the past, but rather, a grand view of all.
In everything, there is unity and in that unity is the universe. I am within.
So, now, I draw from the universe I am in.
I find one picture within a sentence. I find a moment of clarity in a song. I breath and feel I am alive, because I feel.
In this grand landscape of emotion I create. What is emotionless art? Nothing. From accepting only one to accepting it all in observation. This is art in evolution.
1 comment:
I think everyone starts by plagiarising subconcsiously, as life imitates art and art imitates art that's gone before and all that guff. Philip Larkin wrote about this in depth, about copying Auden, Elliot, Yeats, until he settled on his own style. The thing is, I think it's a natural progression for everyone but, I'm always terrified that the end of pursuing our own style will be blindness or even detestation of other's styles.
Post a Comment