So this may seem off-topic for an art/painting blog but books, music, and art are so intertwined for me that I think it will all make sense, bear with me lol…
I recently joined Benjamin McEvoy’s patron, Hardcore Literature Book Club. I’ve been pretty focused on reading the classics for a few years, mainly because I’m very rarely disappointed in them; whereas modern fiction is so hit and miss. I hate reading 100s of pages only to discover a book is trite and badly written lol. Anyway, I was attracted to Ben’s patron because I do have the tendency to go from one book to the next too quickly. I thought his lectures would help me slow down and really reflect on the story. And to remember it! It’s pretty embarrassing when I buy a book I’ve already read years ago.
In Ben’s lecture on The Invisible Man, he had a really interesting recommendation. Louis Armstrong is referenced in the book, his song (What did I do to be so) Black and Blue features pretty prominently in the narrator’s mind, it’s basically his theme song. So Ben recommended listening to several jazz songs pre-Louis and then listening to Louis to understand what a profound impact he had. I wasn’t really expecting that I’d get much out of this comparison because I know nothing about jazz or Louis Armstrong but I clicked on the links and wow! It just hits you right in the face how very different Armstrong was from what came before.
What I immediately felt when Black and Blue started was that THIS was a story. This song is a narrative about an individual’s journey, life, emotions, all expressed through art. The pre-Louis jazz was nice. But it just sounded like…fun nonsense compared to Black and Blue. The pre-Louis jazz sounded entertaining and beautiful but it was all style and no substance. (Listen to the two links above and then Louis.)
Now I’m thinking as an artist: Oh no where do I fall on the pre-Louis vs Louis spectrum of style and substance?? Sadly, no doubt very much on the pre-Louis side of things—like I’m still striving for the pre-Louis lol. We can’t all be earth-shattering artists and change the world, obviously, but we still want to have that something don’t we.. A little bit of the depth The Greats have.
Yep, now I’m thrown into the whirlwind of, is this what’s missing? Am I all fun noise and no story? I’m getting closer to style but where’s the substance?? I wonder how can I get somewhere deeper without painting an obvious narrative. I’m not particularly interested in direct representation. So how do you bring more substance to loose or abstract work?
You can show emotion in brushwork and color, sure, but there’s something else.. Something more that I want to get at… Also, I’m not focused on making my paintings about my feelings. I want something a little more cerebral. Not about abstract concepts or theories but about universal memories, shared history, commonalities…Maybe?
Of course, they say the universal is in the personal. To get to the truly personal you need to follow your instincts, not doubt or hesitate over inspiration. Let it come through. But let’s be honest, a lot of inspiration goes nowhere. But then again maybe a dead end is simply a fork in the path. It’s a lot to think about, that balance between intuition and having something specific you’re trying to express. And how easy it is to try too hard. In the end, I guess we can only keep working and be patient for our own small Louis breakthrough.
PS: If you love books, go watch Benjamin’s videos they’re so good.