Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Relevant or Timeless Art? (Patreon)

Published:
2024-05-14 15:40:31
Imported:
2026-06
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

Hello Friends!

Continuing our discussion on creativity, here are a few thoughts I wanted to share with you after a great conversation with a friend about 'relevant' art.

This turned into a borderline ramble because it's connected to so many topics that I think about on a regular basis as I work to curate a truly inspiring creative head and heart space.

Here are some themes we touched on:

  • Why I don't strive to create relevant art

  • The ancient human experience

  • Connecting with deeper truth

  • Finding an audience that is searching for the same thing

  • Why I try to avoid Self(indulgent) Expression

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

Eva

Files

Previews only

Relevant or Timeless Art?

Comments

Paul C

You are right about the lack of authenticity. That's a word I have been saying to myself for many years now: where has the authenticity gone? I don't think it's a good idea to look for it in the past: I think it's important to have faith that it still exists in us, and to cut through the loudest voices. What you say about your art is also interesting: there are many motivations driving a creative person, whatever level of artistry they have. There is the person that does it to spread love, and there is the person that does it to express themselves, or make sense of their experience. It's too simplistic to say these are mutually exclusive, but they might be mutually exclusive at certain points in time, or in different moments in one's life. I used to express myself through photography. I had a friend express what they thought about photos I had put up on my wall. I told them that it didn't matter, that the reason it was on the wall in the first place was because I believed it was relevant. Art can be giving, it can also be very, very selfish. Personally, I think it's important not to care what a potential audience thinks, because that would dilute the authenticity of your expression. I have many friends who disagree with me. The disagreement doesn't matter. I assume that many of us here support your work because they recognize an authenticity in you. Tell us how you think; don't let our answers change you.

Lady Moon
>>137988501

These are interesting thoughts, Paul. I’d like to clarify a few things. I’m a firm believer in the idea that out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. I think that someone who is obsessed with power and fame will make music about what it's like to live in pursuit of those things, and in doing so, they are being truly authentic, that is, they are expressing what's inside of them. I don’t think we can actually lie when we create, whatever is inside of us will come out in our work, whether that’s fear of truth, discontentment with ourselves, hatred of others, or love of beauty. People sense our energy in our work and they either relate to it or they don’t, but you can’t fool the listener. What I'm talking about in this conversation goes much deeper than authenticity. It's a conversation about what we cultivate in our hearts and minds as artists. What the authentic self expression of today tells me is that, as a culture, we've lost track of what is truly beautiful and worth protecting in ourselves and in the world around us. We should protect beauty, in nature and in our own hearts, minds, and souls, so that beautiful places are not destroyed and mental illness is not rampant. My argument is that the purpose of creating is to heal, and to do so, we have to diagnose the disease and begin to treat it in ourselves. If the disease is self obsession, exploitation, lack of mercy, hatred, self indulgence, victimhood, (or any number of similar topics you’ll hear in the overhead speaker when you enter a store) then, as artists, we should work to cure those things in ourselves, instead of embracing them and commemorating them in a song that people are then subjected to. My argument overall is that our vocation as artists is much greater than authentic self-expression. Our vocation is to help, heal, strengthen and encourage humanity by sharing what is true and beautiful to help combat the dark lies that lead to isolation and mental illness. Also, I think there is a difference between writing something negative to get it out and help make sense of your experience (as you put it so well), and publicly commemorating that negative moment. There are lots of negative things that I think and feel that come out in my journal etc as I’m working through my own sickness of heart, but I don’t publish them because of all the reasons stated above. I don’t want to promote the idea that living in a negative state is normal or healthy or admirable. And lastly, I’m not saying that music should be all sunshine and rainbows. We have dirges for a reason. We need to mourn. Mourning is healing… in case you haven’t caught on to the theme here ;) Wow, that’s a novel! I appreciate you, Paul. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts!

John DeJarnatt

The word relevant seems difficult for me. Who decides what is or isn't relevant? And why? Anything that is considered art (music, sculpture, painting, photography, etc.) is quite subjective I think. What appeals to one person may not matter to the next 100. Does that make it irrelevant? I don't mean that in a negative way. Each person has their own set of senses and experiences that will shape how they react to a piece of art. So the creator of that art may only get a hand full of others who feel the same. Being relevant to others should be a minor concern at most I think. As a photographer, I am compelled to take photos of things that matter to me. It doesn't matter if anyone else sees it the same way I do. Technique, training, desire, and prior experience are just the ingredients of the soup we hope to make. How it tastes in the end is the art.

Graeme D

Some great things to think about, reminded me of a youtube video I watched a while ago by Jordan Peterson on art and artists - spent yesterday evening watching again. I think we strive to create beauty in our art, whatever the medium and that it is through the act of creation that we can loose our ‘self’ in the act and this is when there may be a connection with the transcendent, the great creator. Jordan spoke about artists living on the edge between the known and the unknown trying to discover something new and bring it into the known and articulate it in their medium. This morning I have been pondering the statement ‘Why I don’t strive to create relevant art’ and have been thinking about Banksy’s conceptual art and how for me what he creates is often a bit like the ‘elephant in the room’, a visual message or metaphor of something I/we may have thought about but never expressed or ‘joined the dots’. I think he strives to create relevant art. I think that art can be a reflection of an artists times. For example, surrealism could be seen as a reflection of Freud’s interest in dreams / psychoanalytical writings of the early 1900’s. I don’t think I have ever intentionally set out to create relevant art.

Lady Moon
>>138134993

These are some great thoughts, Graeme! You know, it seems to me like you're right, whatever we create is a result of the time that we live in, whether we are reacting in opposition to the times (perhaps like Banksy and his reaction to consumerism) or we are conforming to the times (perhaps like pop mantras encouraging us to live for ourselves).

Lady Moon
>>138034355

A very good point John! I think for the sake of this conversation, I'm using the word relevant to define what is considered culturally relevant. Whether a piece of art is truly or subjectively relevant is an interesting question, isn't it? I know one thing, the rocky mountains are truly beautiful, and so are Vivaldi's compositions, and as an artist, I try to find as many truly beautiful things as I can, in the hopes that some of the magic will rub off on me ;)

Michael Green

I could not agree with you more about the endeavor to produce timeless art. As a photographer, I also try to produce timeless images rather than trendy or popular work. And you are correct, what is artistically relevant is continuously changing. It is not fruitful to pursue it. We produce our best work when we worry less about what the audience response is going to be. Also, I must say, your intelligence and authenticity shine through brightly in this post. Your music is wonderful and you are giving a gift to the world by sharing it. Thank you!

Lady Moon
>>138169632

Cheers Michael! It's a much more peaceful way to create, isn't it? At the end of the day, all we have to do is find the true and the beautiful, cherish it in our hearts, and share it, often with people who really need the reminder that it's there. Not a bad way to live ;)

Jeremy Brett

I think there certainly is "relevant" art, because all art is relevant to someone's personal experiences and their joys and needs. What you do so well - - your art is as relevant as any - is to make your music so natural and expressive that it doesn't SEEM "relevant", though it certainly is to all our hearts.

Byran Saul

I’ve always loved and respected of you is, you always followed your heart and done you. True timeless art and relevance are only achieved when the artist is true to doing what’s important and great experience to the artist alone. Something you and your sisters have accomplished and you are fine tuning into a great meaningful work of art full of heart and meaning. Many will connect and feel what you create❣️

Lady Moon
>>138224827

Byran, I'm so grateful for all the kind words and encouragement you've shared with me over the years. This was so encouraging to read. Thank you my friend :')

Lady Moon
>>138201593

Ahh, thanks Jeremy :) I'm glad to read this. Very true, all art is relevant to someone's personal experience.

Drew Purves

This was a great perspective Eva thanks for being so open. That sense of timeless authenticity certainly comes across in your music (and discussions) and as several have said here, is something that is drawing us in. Your emphasis on the timeless is interesting to me. I was drawn to science because scientific discoveries have a timeless quality. And I like the quote above, about collaborating with the creator. Good science feels like that and the best music, like yours, is like that too. And folk, the way it helps to tell stories from the deep past, has that timeless quality. Thanks again for all you do!

Jacob Hindi

Your position in the musical sphere is were I place myself musically too Eva. Something deeper and healing not ego music that has to be popular ! Why I was drawn to support your journey 👌👍

Lady Moon
>>138537802

Drew, thank you for this sweet post. I had never considered the timeless quality of science. That’s truly beautiful 🕊️

Eric Fisher

I think the best art or "true" art if you will, is timeless by definition and therefore always relevant, at least thematically. Take songs like (Traffic's) John Barleycorn Must Die or (Joan Baez') Silver Dagger for example (two songs I'd love to hear you cover Eva, btw, if you're still doing that). Most wouldn't say those songs, or songs like them portray circumstances we are likely to find today in the "modern" world, at least not in developed Western nations, so in that sense perhaps they are not "timely". The themes contained in those songs, human persecution and broken-heartedness respectively, deal with perpetual human conditions and emotions represented in circumstances one would have been more likely to find at the time they were written. Yet, those songs and the new artists who adapted and covered them achieved renewed popularity hundreds of years after the lyrics were initially penned, because while we're less likely now to find millers grinding people between stones or mothers bearing silver daggers to either punish daughters or ward off evil men (the song isn't quite clear about which, lol) the themes represented in those songs are as relevant now to the human experience as they were when they were written, and in that sense they are timeless. So Eva, I don't think it's necessarily an either/or question. If one's art is timeless in that it appeals to what is human in us, it is always relevant. I'd say go with your gut on this, you're doing great! As to your thoughts about the nature of some music today, mankind, as well as art, has always considered themes both good and evil. "Bad" art, though bad might lie beyond art's true definition, glorifies what is bad for us, in that it inures to themes and things that cannot bring us happiness. So, bad music is probably not art in its purest sense, and hopefully will not endure. I think bad music generally lacks longevity, and thankfully so. But true art can portray the evil in man, it just doesn't glorify it. On the contrary, it serves as a warning and beacon steering us away from what we'd do best to avoid. Picasso's Guernica comes to mind, as does the Traffic/Windwood song mentioned above. But I do agree with you that there's a lot of bad music out there these days, in that it glorifies an ugliness within our culture and society. I believe that's mostly a case of "art" reflecting society, and fortunately not the other way around. True artistry in my view can only promote happiness, well-being, and help heal. Hopefully, in time the bad stuff is rooted out or at least significantly diminished, and goodness or true art like what I hear from you prevails. Love your work and spirit, keep going! Cheers!