Would it be wrong to save someones life and call it art?
Share on Twitter
What do I mean, ‘save a life’?
That’s part of the question within the question. What does it mean? Prevent them from dying? For how long? Or does that not matter? (All men must die.) Improve their quality of life then, restore their sight? Cure them from a degenerative disease? Save them from a life of slavery? Save them from a life of poverty? Save them from a life of ignorance? What does it even mean to save a life? What qualifies?
Then there’s the how. And the who. And the where.
These are questions, but not stumbling blocks. Let’s take it back to art. Imagine the first sculptors. ‘What if I could take a stone block and somehow carve away some of the stone until the figure of a person remained?’
The questions come. How? Carve with what? What kind of stone to use? What figure do you want to reveal? And the personal … Why?
The painter. ‘What if I could take some pigments, and mix them with oils, then apply them in such a way as to generate an image of a person…’
The questions come. How to make the pigment? What to use to apply it? Onto what? And what result do you want to achieve? And why?
The practicalities of the process can theoretically explored. How about this stone, or that stone, these tools, and this technique. One can look around and see occasions of stone that perhaps might be carvable. One can sit and imagine the perfect block and the sharpest chisel and the beauty that could be found within, perhaps the angel.
And comes a time when one must try?
Share on TwitterPrevious Post Next Post