The Believer - February 2012

The February issue of The Believer did not disappoint again.   

For example, the interview with Chris Johanson by Natasha Boas captures a thoroughly unfettered authentic man who expresses clearly the need to practice his art form.  The business side of showing his art and the artist’s responsibility in this regard flies in the face of what he does best, the doing part.  It’s a perennial obstacle for any creative person.   

Katie Bachner’s interview with Sam Farber, collector of ‘outsider art’ exposes essential points on how art is defined in the mainstream and how the traditional definition may be changing; whether biography informs the content significantly; how ‘outsider art’ may be confidently forging its own path and smudging the lines between what is mainstream and what is not all the while protecting its unique aesthetic.

‘La Bibliothèque Impossible’ tells about a collection of work which few people know about, the Oulipians.

And then, the piece by Aaron Bobrow-Strain on the making of the USDA White Pan Loaf No. 1 was an amazingly informative, fascinating study on the origins of the enriched white loaf which occupies miles and miles of grocery store shelves throughout the continent.  Who would have thought that this spongy nothingness played such an important role in the military strategy of the country in the 40’s.

Each of the articles in this remarkable magazine has to be savoured.  There is so much packed into them.  For the time it takes for McSweeney’s Publishing to prepare the next issue, it takes me to read the one in my hands.  No gleaning over the words here.  In fact, to the contrary.  I feel enriched, just like  Pan Loaf No. 1 and well fortified for the creative day ahead of me.  

Moral centre

I am following the Republican candidate race and have just heard the results of the voting in South Carolina yesterday.  Newt Gingrich can now, with this resounding victory behind him, respond to the latest questions about his second marriage and the statements made by his ex-wife that he desired to have an 'open marriage', statements which may colour the public's view of his moral centre. 


At the same time, the media is reporting on the lack of clarity surrounding Mitt Romney's finances and investments and whether or not he will divulge details of his recent tax return.  His credibility has also been undermined.


In both cases, it is not the particular issue that irks me, it is the apparent lack of transparency of both these candidates to send a message which rings true.  Why is it so hard to tell the truth?  Why do we need to practice denial so often?  Where is our moral courage?  Why are we so reluctant to face the music?  I can't think of one single person who hasn't made some mistake in his/her life that hasn't been regretted.  I think we all have a capacity for forgiveness.  


Imagine, if we could regain such confidence in our politicians knowing that no game is being played and that transparency is really the order of the day and not just a word to be thrown out to the electorate for the purposes of sounding lofty and holier than thou.  Would this not be the beginning of a more savoury environment to govern our country.


Call me naive.  Yes, maybe.  But surely we have to start somewhere and at some point to get back to 'real' and 'true'.  Accepting that it's difficult being a good human being would be a beginning.  Admitting to our frailties and working to strengthen them is surely a sign of courage which we can all recognize.   As a bonus, what a terrific example it would be to show to the generation who currently is dependent on us but who ultimately will follow us in government and upon whom we in later years will be dependent.   If that is not incentive enough to show the way, I don't know what is.

The Creative Self - define

"What is the best way to describe the creative self?  How should we conceive of the relationship between creative persons and the context that informs their work?  Do the rules that govern cultural property help or hinder that work?  When creators mix their labor with contemporary material, or with an inherited tradition, what portion of the new creation may they claim as their own, and for how long?"


This is another quote from 'Common as Air' by Lewis Hyde


I am less focussed on the last question of how long a creator may claim a work as their own and more on how much of the new creation can they claim as their's.  In my work, I am much inspired by designers of previous centuries and depend on those age-worn techniques of the embroiderers of the past, so what part of my work can I authentically claim as mine?  I believe that the answer is in all since it is my mind that interprets the form, my choice of contemporary materials, my selection from the repertoire of stitches and my hand that executes in a way that only that hand can do.  In all these parts lies the source of originality and that which distinguishes my work from another.


And in terms of the 'how long', I invite any other person to take whatever they may from what I do and make it their own.  The goal is to encourage an open exchange and not place any restraint in any place whatsoever.