Being on the Nature of the Relationship between Artists, Musicians and Actors. By J. Kilbey 1/2/00

It has recently been brought forth to my attention again, the strange and symbiotic relationship between Artists, Musicians and Actors.

Whilst there is, by and large, a form of mutual respect, there is never the less an unspoken hierarchy between the disciplines, with Artists at the apex of the pyramid and musicians and actors disputing second place between them.

By 'Artists' I am referring to visual artists, be they sculptors, painters - whatever.

Of course there are boundless individual variances to this sweeping generalisation but assuming that all three of our collective artisans are your common garden variety then I believe this to hold true.

This relationship seems to correlate inversely with the particular fields chances of making a decent living from their muse -

• Visual Artists - next to no chance.
• Musicians and Actors - Buckley's chance. (Approximately three degrees above next to no chance)

All three disciplines start ostensibly, with the act of observation, whether of the artist's own internal processes or the world about them. It is the act of communicating these observations that we call "the Arts".

Given that the visual arts are the most cerebral, and by that I mean the most conceptual, it is no wonder Artists consider themselves more worthy and validated than the other two disciplines. Precisely because of the conceptual nature to their work it is important that they take themselves extremely seriously.

If they are to put forth that their high school bogey collection is in fact a serious and regarded piece referring not only to the nature of smell and memory but also to the current polluted air of society which is inhibiting the natural Prana or life force of our natural selves - then they could have a successful show and perhaps base an entire career around such a notion. (Ok, so they may have to flesh the concept out a little, perhaps with some postmodern trainspotting by citing as an influence Ren and Stimpy's 'Nose Goblin' display)

The point is, if there is one, Artists are not 'allowed' to say "Oh, I was just picking my nose one day and really liked the forms that I was producing. I found my bogeys aesthetically pleasing in the highest degree and thought others might do the same." The world of the so called art establishment would laugh them out of the gallery. To this end most Artists will be found at openings or even BBQ's discussing their latest theories and so on. Espousing how tremendously interesting their latest work is because of the radical ideas behind it and in fact boring the hell out of whomever they may be talking to, unless it's another artist waiting to counter with their own important school of theory.

I recently met one pleasant, gin swilling concept generator who, with a straight face mind, extolled the Anti-Artist movement to which he belonged. "Oh yes, I am an Artist, from the school of Artists Against Art. I produce Anti-Art, non-Art and everything but Art. And therein lies the true artfulness to my work - in its very ability to not be Art at all!"

Actually, I found this idea reasonably interesting, if only for the absurdity of it. Which is precisely the point I am sure the G. S. C. G would be trying to make. There followed a convoluted theory tying the whole notion to various universal principles, all of which had to begin with the letter P.

I kid you not. And why not? There is only so many times a generation of artists can paint a bowl of fruit.

Lest you think this rant is merely a cheap swipe at the visually and conceptually motivated members of the greater artistic community, I best get in a few cheap swipes at actors and musicians too.

Actors have their own notions on the importance of theory. They call it - the Process or the Method.

It is by the application of this which enables them to assume a different character, or act. They too take themselves as seriously as their egos will allow, which is pretty seriously let's face it. However, the higher concepts of visual artists give way to a more self obsessed inner motivation behind the art of acting. More important is how effectively they have become their character, how realistic they appear and how much they actually feel their own performance. It is therefore an intrinsic part of an actor's psychology that they be able to manipulate their ego, allowing them to make room for another voice within their head. Were it that the actor's own ego was not well developed, there could be a dramatic loss of individuality after a performance - the actor becoming the role they have taken on. While a certain amount of this may occur directly following intense acting, the self-inflating actor's ego resurfaces before too long.

It is this necessary protective mechanism which makes actors so full of themselves and their art. They could, and probably will, go on about how their current character is a microcosm of such and such an archetype within society, about how they are bringing awareness of the unconscious wants and desires of humanity to the fore for all to see and more importantly, about how great they look at the moment.

Remember, of the three disciplines, acting is the only one which cannot exist without it's audience. Audiences which are increasingly hard to find. Keep this in mind when the actor confuses the rest of the BBQ as it's audience. This is highly justified of course. While Artists and Musicians are able to distance themselves to a degree by standing behind their 'tools', an actor only has himself to hold up for inspection. That is, apart from props and special effects and so on, the actor becomes the tool of their own working. And so at parties actors can not be blamed for talking about themselves, slipping into character now and then to make sure their favourite tool is still sharp and working.

Musicians (and here I am mainly referring to people in bands although by and large these observations will apply to anyone who has strummed a guitar for an afternoon or played with a symphony orchestra) have their own internal characters they may take on whilst performing but these are more likely to be based on their own 'natural' idiosyncratic personality.

Unless they are in Kiss.

Musicians feel more that they are accessing some great eternal spring of inspiration. Their fingers are poised directly above the Great Pool of the Muse, which they can use like no more than a finger bowl at their own discretion. This in turn can make them introverted, paranoid and, like another poised above a Great Pool, narcissistic. It can fill them with a sense of importance which is akin to the Keepers of the Flame.

Their instruments are the tools which allows them to communicate with this great muse. They must be well polished at all times, unless left to bear their marks like somesuch medals of life. This, as with Artists, allows them some distance from the muse and gives them the incontrovertible right to comment on society, feeling somewhat displaced from it as they do...hence the social awareness of most musicians.

Singers, the original musician, are in need of some special mention here, for they are often the focus of their audience. Theirs is an oral tradition, which may well account for why so many singers come across as such royal cocksuckers. They especially feel it is their duty to report back to humanity to tell it like it is, giving us their unbridled insights into the true nature of humanity. Of course this is a very difficult topic to convey accurately and so most singers will have to improvise with a few good strains of "Baby, baby, baby - yeah!"

If Artists are the eyes and mind of our artistic triumvirate, actors the face, singers the voice, then surely musicians must be the phallus. For do they not play upon their instruments with such relish as to provoke orgasm? And is that look upon their face not one of self-satisfaction? Are lead guitarists not generally regarded in the community as utter wankers? Yet auto eroticism is a vital and important step in learning about one's sexuality. This remark has little to do with the Arts, but I offer it anyway as justification for copious masturbation.

And so, should, say at a party, an Artist, an actor and a musician strike up conversation, what a strange and peculiar dialogue might occur between them.

No actor or musician worth his weight in salt would ever admit to thinking better of an Artist, yet they will both at a certain and hidden level feel both fear and jealousy that the Artist has such a reason concrete for their work. They are exploring revolutionary concepts, challenging the status quo (perhaps literally) and, most importantly, they know why they are doing it.

At least, most Artists will have a ready stream of complicated ideas which justify their work - how often does one hear an Artist exclaim their painting is no more than a pattern of pleasing colours?

Never, that's how often.

The actor knows not why they act, except that they enjoy the attention.

The musician has even less idea why they make music, except perhaps that it gives them an excuse to sit in their bedroom by themselves and wallow in their own thoughts.

In truth it is unlikely that any such conversation will occur once all are aware of the others leanings. Chances are, they will be far too inebriated on their poison of choice to make much sense anyway, or to understand what is being said to them. With a casual shrug of the shoulders they are apt to take their leave and search out a shop assistant or somesuch that they can truly impress...

And so ends this essay on the relationship between Artists, actors and musicians; scoundrels all whom frequent their own wavelength and rarely crossover, except for a quick 'hail fellow well met...' when out at a barbie.

(But what of writers I hear you cry? What of filmmakers and poets? Why do they receive no mention?

What of them I reply... No writer would attend a social function, unless it was at a brewery.

Filmmakers would have their own private BBQ and spend it hard at work on the casting couch.

Poets are so far off the beam they are surely incomprehensible to all but another poet..)

FIN.