Thank you for the link, austere, I read the article and the post. Both I found very interesting. But the writer of the post did – at least in my opinion – mix in two things I would not compare, or maybe he simply choose uneasy examples when he talked about standards of technics (cities, human environment) and the alta moda: Technical standards can not be mediocre in the way the artist (in our example the actors) talks about. It works or explodes, nothing else: It fulfills the required necessities or goes bust – that is something totally different from the “standards”, or better: demands, somebody who is working creatively can have towards (on? Sorry) himself. The second example, alta moda and the four designers, well – who actually can afford to wear what some clowns in Milano want people to wear? The “western hemisphere” does not joggle along like puppets on a string according to the command of said four elitist tailors. First: very few can afford to buy such things, and second: if you have money left for something unnecessary like clothing a la mode, the very first principle to observe is: Does it fit? Is it elegant? Does the color match my eyes?
Whether you act, paint or form things, write or work otherwise creative: You can never be content. It is never over. I strongly contradict the sentence “that talent has the unique capacity to judge its own capability“. I do not believe “that talent of some quality will and shall always be their own best judges.” Talent is given out by the gods with full buckets. It needs training, craftmanship, work. You have to sit down and write, rewrite, form, think. You give it away because you are tired, because the date has expired, because you need the goddam’ pay or simply because you can see that scribble no more. If you know your talent, you will learn about your capabilities and you will learn about your limits, and maybe one day you accept them.
But to judge is something different. Who on earth has the ability to be his own judge? Who has the ability to look in an seemingly or nearly closely “objective” way onto himself? That is not possible. You always know what you wanted, where you were aiming to – but where you finally landed or crashed, what other actually SAW in your act, in your art, what they read in your text – that is something totally different. From some point onwards the text is finished. Tweak there, push and polish, the plan was drawn long before, the building is done, have a look, let it rest, have a final look and throw it out. It will life by itself. Or die.
An actor, even when doing filming, has not too many chances to repeat: He has to deliver. He simply has that moment, there is no other left, you can not start again on stage, you have to life it. Now. You never know whether it works, you never know what is seen. You can not be content, you can not judge yourself, because you always do “as if”, the actor always has a divided and multiple personality, is always “the other” too.
You can never fully control the image in another human’s eye – because this human, as yourself, forms the image in the head, fills it up with imagination, with meaning, finally creates what he sees!
Elite? Who are “the masses”? I judge what I see, hear, what happens to me. I do not want someone to tell me what I have to think, feel, believe, be it “masses” or some critic. But I prefer the critic, because he is a concrete individual, a human being who speaks, arguments, to whom I can contradict or agree. “Masses” can not do such things. If there is someone who says he would speak for the “masses”, I would regard that as a cheap trick to gain authority.
If the belief in the humanistic educated, self-thinking and autonomous individual is elitist, than I am a happy elitist.
It is the single individual human being who creates the whole world again and again, who gives sense to the unending senselessness of the world, who creates culture by giving meaning and connecting things, acts, people – man creates kosmos by logos.
Yeah, drunter mach’ ich’s nicht: Not less.