Social Change as Currency | Finn von Claret

Dearest Readers,

First off, I must send my thanks to all of you who bid on, or won my Ebay auctions this week. It helped a lot, as Chance and I have split the ticket, and the auctions more than covered my half. I can breathe easier now, and to those of you who’ve won, please take care of those gowns. I spent a lot of time, energy and love putting them together, and they hold really good memories. You are their caretakers now.

Alright, on to business. This blog post is more about semantics than anything, so I need your thoughts, read on.

424 (Finn von Claret in Subconscious Suites)

Splinter’s board is comprised of 4 very strong, very distinctive women. We all have different talents that we contribute to the company, and we all have different backgrounds stylistically not only in the types of dance we do, but also in our views as artists and how we relate to art on a social level. All are valid, and very similar in purpose despite their differences.

Let me explain..

I view my artistic work as intentional, relative and provokative. When I make a dance piece, I’m dissecting my subconscious, learning lessons and simplifying to set a work on dancers and relate to the public. In short, I want to unselfishly express myself. I really hope that people get something out of it, but I’m not into a lot of hand holding and I want people to think for themselves. I love choreography because I’m able to find more intrinsic ways to explain my already abstract subconscious with finite ideas and relative symbology. If someone asks me why I make work I’ll say. “Because I have to contribute, because I have to relate, and I have to do it with my body.” Some people hate my choreography, some love it and say they “get” every piece I’ve ever made. They can tell me the things that they liked, but when they get it, I can just see it in their eyes. Movement, music, visual art, etc. have a way to capture all of us. Basically what I’m trying to say here is. No matter what the style, or form, intentional people make intentional art.

The other members of the board agree with me on all these counts, but they phrase it differently. I know what they are meaning to say, but because of their approach to their past company projects, I cringe when I hear the words “social issues, social consciousness, or social change” as descriptors as art. Note that I said descriptors, not results.

Two of my close friends who are also fellow board members, have been running a program in the past for youth, focusing on leadership and dance based around social issues like rape, violence, racism etc. These performances were more for schools and other educational programs. I think dances about social issues are very valid in our society, and dance is a great way to teach kids about these issues. The program they ran was something long running that they were part of in the past. It was very successful and created a strong community. I also feel that there is a sort of censorship working outside of an artistic community, and people expect to learn something from these dances. They expected a product.

I don’t feel motivated to make literal work about social issues though. I don’t set out to clearly educate people. I want to create work thats viewed in a conversational way, about human ideas that aren’t simple, but complex and interwoven. At times my work may have some of these “social issues” in with everything else, but I don’t think I focus on educating, just expressing. Sometimes my work can be violent, passionate, etc. My current piece is about all the different types of people I have encountered over and over again in my patterns in Seattle. Media Luna has several common themes that I think many can relate to.The work is basically 3 sets of modern dance tangos that are symbolic to the relationships I’ve encountered in my life and what they have taught me.

Simply put, The first one about the relationship you have with yourself.

The second is about those who would follow the laws of power and those who take from eachother.

The third is about unconditional love, kindness and bliss.

Each duet has people in my life that are characters, they are abstract. Sometimes I model a role after several concepts. Just like and author in a book, the characters represent ideas and ideals. I also am using different stylistic approaches for each one.

But am I intentionally creating social change or are my pieces about social issues? I don’t set out to do work that could be cut and dry. I don’t know what people are going to leave with. My stuff isn’t that literal. Its just very, very, intentional and specific. I work from my cause and hope for a deep effect. There isn’t a wrong or right answer for how someone feels about my work after a performance. In fact, I love hearing all the diffrent ways it affected people, or provoked them to think about things in their lives that it reminded them of. It provoked a conversation. That is when a work is truly “done” for me.

So here is my question.

How would you feel if someone asked you to make work that was related to “social change” or “social issues”. How would you approach that? Would you feel work, or artistic contributions you have made in the past are contributing to that mantra and is it empowering, or does the term make you cringe because it sounds limiting, or heavy?

We are having a debate with the board about the use of these terms, it would be helpful to hear what you have to say.

5 Comments so far

Surprised, to start, but it would definitely pique my interest. Then I’d want specifics. Am I trying to enact change/issues, or represent? Speak for or against? Is it a specific issue? Etc. The scope of the thing would tweak my reaction and approach, honestly. I might turn out to have an issue with the project on some level or other. Ultimately though, it’s also worth remembering that art and what it means, really, is up to the viewer. The artist can mean whatever they want, but if the viewer experiences something different, the intentions of the artist get fuzzy. There’s a lot of debate over this sort of thing in the literary world to. Do we, as readers, just read the work? Or do we look into the author’s history? The world at the time it was written, etc, etc. Both, I feel, are valid, but with generally yield vastly different results.

I, personally, believe that the history of an artist’s work does feed into the thing. I think I appreciate new work more, after having known the older work. Seeing the evolution (or lack thereof, or regression even) enhances the experience. Knowing Tori Amos’ personal history (or what has been made knowable by her) adds a gravitas and a sincerity to many of her songs that just might not be there otherwise. I think this is the same across most artistic endeavors.

While I don’t think the term is limiting, in and of itself, if I were entrusted to bring about change, the weight of that responsibility would surely be felt. I don’t, however, think that’s necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it’s that pressure that brings about a higher experience.

getting litteral w social issues can be touchy. You risk much putting yourself out there in political manner, and trust me social issues are political. I would also question the motives of the person or groups soliciting the work. If your heart is in it and you are inspired to do it no artist will fault you. The audience may not be so forgiving. This is an interesting subject to me and now i wonder what kind of work you’re upto.

Looking at it from the standpoint of a writer, that’s a tough call. If it was related to a job I was doing, yeah, I’d do it because, well, it’s what I was hired for. But if it’s something I do more for myself, I don’t know that I could. I write short stories for myself, because they’re entertaining (to me, at least). But if someone told me to write a short story that was supposed to relate to “social change” or “social issues”, I don’t know that I could just do it out of nowhere.
It’s a tough call either way.

>>>How would you feel if someone asked you to make work that was related to “social change” or “social issues”. How would you approach that?>>>

I would want to vomit.

“Art” that claims to be about social change can’t reach very deep. Just like “Political Art” can’t reach nearly as deep as someone simply striving to “make something beautiful” (as Robert Wilson once succinctly stated his artistic aims.)

Why is this? Or, why do I think this???

Well, it is easier to say so with so-called political art. Art that is trying to be political always creates a division. It always puts one group of people, or one idea, on one side and therefore you end up with the opposing force on the other side. Always. There is always this duality with political force. In my world, music and multi-media, the aim is for union & integrity. Union with the audience. Union within the audience. Union with the work and the performance experience. And union with the Muse. And by integrity I don’t mean “being honest” but being whole and integrated. The way a real work of art holds together all of it’s parts.

In my view political art can never really do this, because it always puts someone on the outside. It is always exclusive.

Similarly, art purporting to effect social change feels, at minimum, somewhat bogus to me. And at it’s worst…fuck me… I’d rather have a root canal than give my attention to some pratty artist who wants to tell me what they don’t like about the world.

One of many reasons is that, who is this artist who says they know how the world should be working. Haven’t they spent the better part of their lives holed up in the studios practicing their craft? How is that some kind of authority of knowing what is right and wrong AND how to go about changing it?

It’s true artists do have a very unique perspective on the world. Especially in regards to how the creative forces work on us. But…. I’m not so sure that is automatic social authority.

I mean, sure, it’s easy to pick out some truly awful things about the world that no one could deny, and use it as a platform to “make a statement.” Rape, oppression, murder and war are all available for us to gather around and agree that they are bad.

From my most cynical side I would say that social/political artists feel powerless, so that try to put themselves on the side of “good” in order to puff up their self-worth. In reality we, as artists, ARE powerless: we have no idea how we make good things or bad things. We can only open up to the creative forces and hope for the best.

But, do I choose to open myself through someone’s work of art because I want to be lifted up and participate something miraculous, or do I want to be told that something in the world is bad?

The answer is simple for me. I want to lifted up. Not in denial of the world. But because there is a place to be lifted to.

Trey

I don’t know much about dancing – it amazes me, because I have no sense of rhythm and cannot express myself in that way at all. However, I can speak from my experience with painting, because it’s the only thing that makes sense to _me_.

I’d cringe, that’s for sure, that’s what the words “social ____” do to me. I’d approach it from my own perspective, my own experience and try to make the best of it. It’s really hard for me (and anyone else, I believe) to do something GOOD out of something I know nothing about. We all draw from our own past experiences, and my experience so far tells me that you either do it YOUR way or it’s going to be bland and boring (because you’ll probably end up doing what’s already been done, in a much poorer way).

I hope I made some sense

RSS feed for comments on this post.

TrackBack URI

Name (required)

E-mail (required)

URI

Your Comment

Subscribe to comments (Email must be filled in)

About

Recent Entries

Links