Brian Eno is a muti-faceted talent, reknowned for being a non-musician who nonetheless makes music, he is also a producer, a visual artist and an investigative thinker. I've viewed recent lectures he's given, where he posed the questions ~ What is Art For? In this he made, what is by his own admission, a very narrow definition of the function of art and culture, that it is:
'everything that we don't have to do' *
Humanity he believes, has this 'functionless' aesthetic impulse that seeks to express itself across an extremely diverse collection of objects,people and cultures. It does not matter how ordinary or humdrum either, it is there in the way we style our clothes, the design of screwdrivers, to the decorative finishes applied to everything be it handrails, cars, cameras or buildings. It includes the contrived artifices of art, craft and the so called higher arts, but isn't restricted to them, or by them. 'The aesthetics of everything' appears to dismantle any boundary you might wish to erect around creative invention.
Apparently we cannot leave a basic activity or object alone without adding these useless embellishments. It is not sufficient for things to be functional, operate perfectly or be well designed for use. They do, however, enhance that function, the individual, the beholder and the world. This aesthetic volition, seems to be one of those 'values that transforms people's lives. For by decorating the object, building or person we alter not only our view of them, but also the way we engage with them. It lifts our spirits, introduces small pleasures into using tools, whilst executing ordinary tasks in the mundane world. They appear to be:~
'all constructions of little worlds, that say I belong to the kind of world where this sort of hairstyle can exist.' *
Our relationship, is not just with what we consider aesthetically beautiful, but the dichotomy it traps us in. Could this be altered by 'the aesthetics of everything'? Perhaps it could open our eyes to a world hidden from our perception by the beauty-filled tint of the spectacles we wear. Presenting us with fresh perspectives for cultural, social or spiritual interactions with this world. By more closely aligning ourselves with everyday experience, we place ourselves in a position that brings a sense of unity, purpose, inter-connection and identification with a broader range of other peoples aesthetic visions.
'culture is a set of collective rituals we are all engaged with' (which are) 'rehearsing through acts of imagining' (exposing us) 'to the joys and freedoms of a false world, so we can locate them in our own world' .*
Such imaginative rituals appear to occupy a pivotal role in the development of empathy and hence the maintenance of social cohesion. By broadening the sources for aesthetic engagement we make it possible to dissolve the social distinctions of good taste, the distinctive aroma of personal preference we tend to spray-tan our Self identity with.
I can see how Eno's definition could be viewed as the 'democratisation' of aesthetic experience, though it shouldn't necessarily be seen as a downgraded or dumbed down version. We are often encouraged to believe that creativity, art and culture are like frivolous molluscs, that artists live in remote ivory towers, only made possible by the hard work and industry of others. Culture, so narrowly defined, has to justify its existence by being economically viable. Eno is adamant that, even though their contribution to GDP is huge and self evident, there is no such thing as the 'creative industries', that this term misrepresents what their true purpose is, they are ~
'not add ons, but the central thing that we do.' *
There is nothing practically useful about any aesthetic activity. They are part of what Sangharakshita refers to as 'the greater mandala of uselessness', where you are doing something that is important and has meaning for you, but essentially has no practical use whatsoever. 'The aesthetics of everything' may affect ones spirits, bring its own rewards, improve the quality of your life, or change your perspective, but it has no practical application. Its not a great career move.
'everything that we don't have to do'*
Places the locus for creativity in the daily awareness of experience. Encompassing the full breadth of forms that human creativity and self-expression can take. All humanity shares in common this universal aesthetic predisposition. It is only the style and lengths to which it is taken that is different. The creative hierarchy of aesthetic endeavours into, applied, decorative and high arts by Ruskin and the Arts & Crafts Movement in the 19th century, does still permeate, and I'd say, poisons our everyday perceptions. We'd have to ditch these distinctions, in order to be able to appreciate fully all dimensions of 'the aesthetics of everything'.
The force coming from our surrounding culture we should bear in mind. In Eno's view. whilst there is a place for the Genius - the talent of the individual, its the Scenius - the talent of the whole community, he puts greater value on. He gives the example of Russian Constructivism. The first flush of revolutionary fervor leading to the democratisation of art, stimulating a huge flowering of creativity across artistic mediums and social classes. Whilst we only remember the celebrated names now, there were literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people involved. Dependent upon a background network of cafes, bars, galleries, sympathisers, buyers and patrons for support and for an artistic movement to grow. It emerged out of Utopian idealism, political, social and creative that encouraged it to flourish, albeit all too briefly.
'New ideas are articulated by individuals, but generated by communities.' *
In Buddhism in particular, we are supported by a broader spiritual community that helps and encourages us to make individual progress. Individual progress strengthens the collective, the sense of commonality, of shared practices and unified purpose. It is said that the Bodhicitta, the overwhelming desire for enlightenment, is more likely to arise within a communal situation rather than in a specific individual. Developments arise, not just because of your individual creativity within spiritual practice, but also because of everyone else's, from past, present and future. We all need the beneficial qualities of a surrounding context. The people who teach you meditation or study, the Buddhist Centre with its teachers, the movements founder, all the inherited teachings and insights that take us all the way back to the Buddha's era.
'If you make work in a different way that in itself is a political statement...it becomes a vision of how we can do things....what you present is an idea of how life could be different.'*
Valuing what your everyday surroundings provide you with benefits greater aesthetic awareness. But also stimulates acts of imagination and empathy. Those actions, however,, slowly shift you away from a strong tendency in our culture to think that its 'all about me', that in the end 'it all depends on me', 'me and my genius' or the lack of it.
We tend to look for the guiding genius in a situation. Even when the creative process and its sources were actually much broader and more diverse than that. In soccer its the gifted footballer, rather than the combined talents of everyone to work together as a team. In pop music, the lead singer in the band, or the band's songwriters tend to attract and garner more praise, whilst the remaining band members become like session musicians. Many years later these individuals emerge disgruntled and litigating in order to get the appreciation, and financial reward for their musical contribution to the creation and success of the band they were part of. A rock band may have geniuses within it, but the sound and ethos of it is a collective amalgam, garnered from all the people involved. The band were also part of a much bigger music scene in a town, city or country, and the multi-faceted inheritors of specific musical legacies.
We tend to believe any modicum of success we obtain is down to how much individual creative icontrol we hold over a situation. We may put it down to luck, but luck seems to me to be just a helping hand reaching out to us from an underground culture. Whilst we shape our reality, we are simultaneously being shaped by it. Its important to know when to surrender to being shaped, to surrender our grip on control, let whatever will happen happen, allow others to lead, to sit back and let go of our need to steer. Similarly, in experiencing the everyday we could just allow things to happen, let experience wash through us without trying to hold onto the best bits, let what ever comes into our experience be, allowing it to linger or go unhindered. However, when we encounter a pleasurable or painful experience we tend to become consumed by it, it eats away at us for breakfast, lunch and dinner. We may discover we can neither surrender to nor control our experience. the baggage and back story that accompany them can be so well versed, and too strong to resist.
'There is a back story to anything that tells you how you should perceive it.'*
Lets say we are meeting a friend for a coffee, cake and a chat in a favourite cafe, we go there with an air of expectation and anticipation. Filled with updates and stories to tell them, we meet them accompanied by the complete back catalogue of all we know about them, how we perceive them, who we believe they are. But when they turn up, they appear uncomfortable, restless, not the self we usually meet up with, something feels wrong. They confess a criminal act they've committed. You're view of them is thrown into turmoil and confusion. This action conflicts with how you see them, contradicts all the stories you've told yourself about them. You find yourself in two minds about whether you can remain friends with such a person?
Likewise, we think we know what the experience of everyday life is like. We think we know what art, craft, design and Theresa May are like, but we don't. We tell ourselves oft repeated stories that confirm and fix our perceptions of them. This is sometimes referred to as 'confirmation bias', where we only find ideas and people that support the views we already hold. If we are 'to see things as they really are' this would entail being willing to loosen the hold these 'back stories' have over us, disrupt their self-perpetuating feedback loop. Though I wouldn't for one moment suggest that this can be quickly or easily accomplished.
When we think about what 'everyday beauty' is, we can get hooked on that one word 'beauty' Beauty exists in an incestuous relationship with its ugly shadow. When we encounter anything we make judgements along a spectrum from wonderful, through just ok, to horrible. As the cliche goes 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' so if we were to change what our eye beholds and looks for, would we then see aesthetically beautiful qualities even in things that we previously catagorised as ugly?
There is a popular traditional Zen saying that goes as follows:
'At first, I saw mountains as mountains, and rivers as rivers.
Then I saw mountains were not mountains, and rivers were not rivers.
Finally I see mountains again as mountains, and rivers again as rivers.'
For the purposes of this article I have transposed this into:
At first, I saw beauty as beauty, and ugly as ugly.
Then I saw beauty as not being beautiful, and ugliness as not being ugly.
Finally I see beauty as beauty, and ugly as ugly.
I'm treading on risky ground here in trying to explain a Zen saying. However, I'm doing so because I wish to use it to demonstrate stages in how perceptions change on the journey to seeing 'everyday beauty', 'the aesthetics of everything' in its fullness.
We live in a concrete world of fixed definitions and dichotomies, where beauty is beauty and ugly is ugly. Its a human need to make judgements and to control, to know where we are, and what is what. However, to begin appreciating wider qualities of everyday experience we would have to break out of catagorisation into This versus That. This limits what can be seen as beautiful or ugly. If these could be less rigidly held, they might become more permeable or elastic. Starting to perceive 'ugly' characteristics in the 'beautiful,' and 'beautiful' characteristics in the 'ugly,' may begin to break down such two-sided distinctions, making them appear inviable.
Many years ago, in the first flush of my ardour for Buddhist practice I threw out of my record collection anything I thought was raucous, coarse, violent or unsavoury in tone, because I felt it might impede the refining of my mindfulness practice. So, out the window went my entire collection of Nick Cave records. Some years later, after my practice had become very dry spiritually and my imagination deprived of necessary sustenance, I found myself re-purchasing music I'd previously thrown away, including the Nick Cave. I was surprised at how different my perceptions of it had become. What I'd previously seen as an unhealthy dwelling on the murderous darker sides of human behaviour, instead stimulated imaginative connections of empathy and compassion within me. What must it be like to be like that? How desperate must you be in order to do such things? I felt touched by how murder was a tragedy for all concerned. Whether victim or perpetrator it was all suffering under different names. What I'd previously seen as bad, distasteful or ugly became tinged with a sympathetic, melancholic air of beauty.
This type of opening up of our awareness, subtly relaxes our preferences and seems to me to be quite a crucial stage. It straddles the gap between being ignorantly unaware and becoming aware in an ever broader and more equanimous way. The final sentence of the Zen saying, might appear to have returned us to the state of the first sentence, However, in the first sentence we sought out the beautiful and avoided the ugly. In the final sentence, such craving or aversion have ceased, and things can be simply beautiful or ugly, pleasant or painful without any additional prejudicial thought being attached to them. An appreciation for the aesthetics of everything, is what the state of 'everyday beauty'appears to become in its fullest ultimate sense.
As we pass from being Unenlightened and Unaware, to Unenlightened but Increasingly Aware, to Enlightened and Fully Aware, our aesthetic awareness is transformed.
* These quotes are all Brian Eno, taken from two of his lectures, his John Peel Lecture in 2015, and Andrew Carneige Lecture 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment