Sunday 5 June 2011

Sunday Mornings: Coffee, Reflections and Music

Asked once from where he got his inspiration, the late Cuban filmmaker Humberto Solás answered: I just go out and live. Now, I might or might not be right about his exact words, but the message was clear: for him life acted as a catalyst which spurred him on to make movies. The mundane, the quotidian; that was what motivated Solás. Not least in his magnum opus, Lucía, a film about three women living in different moments of Cuba's history. That ordinariness is present in the Lucía of 1895, Viscontiesque influence, notwithstanding. It is again found in the second story, set against the backdrop of the Machado dictatorship and it's ubiquituous in the final instalment, which takes place in the '60s as the Revolution gathers pace.

This approach to everyday events by artists and the use they make of them to transcend or otherwise, has been on my mind lately as I've just reached the mid point of Virgilio Piñera's Teatro Completo. Virgilio was Cuba's foremost writer and Teatro Completo is a collection of all his plays, some of which I'd already read and others which I hadn't. Piñera carved a very creative - though not always successful - career out of the mundane and ordinary. His innovative approach is there in Electra Garrigó, arguably the first play ever written in the style that would later become theatre of the absurd (Ionescu's The Bald Soprano premiered in 1950 in Paris, whereas Electra was written in 1941 and first saw the light in 1948 in Havana), it's also present in Aire Frío, Virgilio's semi-autobiographical family drama. Piñera's art was grounded in the local and recognisable. When Luz Marina complains endlessly about the heat in the first act of Aire Frío, her words acquire a meaning much deeper than at first glimpsed. Beyond the usual moan about the omnipresent hot weather in Cuba, there lies a message of frustration and disappointment; of being locked in a non-stopping carousel in an underveloped society.

For whom do writers writer? For whom do painters paint? For whom do film-makers make films? These questions have been circling my head lately like vultures following a pride of lions to see what they can scavenge.

It seems to me that some of the art - and I include literature in this definition, too - under whose infuence we have remained for centuries was created for a specific audience, and had even a somewhat ephemeral touch to it at the time. The Mona Lisa is the face of a local woman who is shown neither smiling nor grimacing. Yet, it is this ambiguity that has secured her position in the artistic canon. Bach's approach to music was at times minimalist and repetitive, a style that we could say was a precursor, in a way, to the work of contemporary composers such as Phillip Glass. However, his work has been acknowledged, and quite rightly so, as ground-breaking.

Was transcendence in these artists' minds when they set to create their masterpieces? I doubt it. Leonardo da Vinci was a protégé of Ludovico il Moro, Duke of Milan, by whom he was often commissioned to work on different projects. Any of his designs or models could have become as famous as the Mona Lisa. In Bach's case, he was not just a composer, but also an arranger and teacher. For these two artists their craft was a way of paying their bills. Hardly the romantic idea transcendence stands for, but reality nonetheless.

If I was to answer the three questions I asked before I would say that writers, painters and film-makers write, paint and make films for themselves first and foremost. Which is not to say that the end result is so labyrinthine that only they hold the key to the entrance and exit of the maze. No, it means that the art the artist creates must satisfy the artist above all. Of course, I've left out mortgage, bills and family on purpose. Please, don't burst my bubble yet. But my theory is the same: art is grounded on localism, the immediate and the quotidian. This is what makes The Beatles' A Day In the Life a segue to Joyce's tale about a day in the life of Leopold Bloom. Furthermore, art and its significance also depend on context.

Frida Kahlo used her body - almost literally - as her main inspiration. That her art exceeded all expectations can be pinned down not just to her creative prowess (and her famous partner, Diego Rivera), but also to her personal circumstances. Same with Picasso's Guernica. Without the historical backdrop of Italian and German warplanes laying waste to the eponymous town, his painting (commisioned by the Spanish Republican movement) would have joined the ranks of many others that have shown throughout the centuries the tragedy and suffering armed conflicts inflict. Another example is Korda's iconic photo of Che Guevara, which was actually shelved until El Guerrillero Heroico set off to export his radical ideas on how to make a revolution to Africa and Latin America. Then it became the must-have fashion item of wannabe revolutionaries the world over.

There are, however, cases of artists, including writers, who want to transcend at all costs and therefore make their works as inaccessible as possible, in the hope that only those belonging to a selected group can decipher their message. Sometimes even the act of decoding said work of art is tantamount to sacrilege; so much they want to rise above everything and everyone. Or on other occasions they go after the big themes, which is why there was so much controversy over Franzen's latest novel, Freedom and the way it seemed to want to depict and sum up quite ambitiously an entire era: the US before and after 9/11.

In my case, I prefer the artist who thinks local but whose art goes global, whether he/she intends it or not. And in that category I place Gil Scott-Heron, who sadly died a few days ago. Of all his trail-blazing songs, The Revoluton Will Not Be Televised, B-Movie, Lady Day and John Coltrane, the one to which I've always felt more affinity is Brother. It appears in his debut album, Small Talk at 125th and Lenox. When he sings 'We deal in too many externals, brother/Always afros, handshakes and dashikis/Never can a man build a working structure for black capitalism/Always does the man read Mao or Fanon', the message the melody conveys goes beyond the harangue to which Gil subjects his black brethren. The fact that a track featured in an album whose title refers to an address in New York makes me feel that way is testament to Scott-Heron's ability to transcend.

True art, in my opinion is grounded in the local and the quotidian. Virgilio, Kahlo and Scott-Heron knew it. That's why they went out and lived.

© 2011

Next Post: 'While My MP3 Gently Plays', to be published on Wednesday 8th June at 11:59pm (GMT)


  1. Hola Cuban, it has been a while :)

    In a way maybe we are also like the artists, we blog for ourselves, and we live and blog. There were movies lately that I watched that really touched me and one of them was Warm Springs or something like that, about Roosevelt learning to walk again and after he was struck by polio. Artist brought stories to life and life to stories.

  2. I'd just add that if they happen to experience an event of great magnitude, that event will permeate through their work too. The quotidian, the immediate, the place they inhabit will reflect in their camera eye.

  3. Achieving transcendence through the mundane and trivial is, in my mind, the mark of a great work of art. It is possible, after all, to brush stroke everything into oblivion. In so doing, I suspect power is lost. This is a principle I have to remind myself of every single time I write. It is harder to write about the trivial and make it sing. Cortazar in Rayuela did exactly that though. And what a masterpiece that was.

  4. You bring out many interesting points pertaining to art (and literature). I have often wondered what qualifies as art/literature? Is any film / drawing / painting art? Is any piece of writing literature? Or it must possess some specific characteristics for it to be called art? I agree with you that transcendence was most likely not really top of the mind for the artists when they went about creating their art. And true art is grounded in the local and the quotidian.

  5. Inspiration (for writing) out of the mundane has coincidentally been on my mind lately as well. Really enjoyed this post and am going to seek out the writers/filmakers you mentioned. Shamefully I'm not familiar with them already.

  6. Yes, I agree. The true "greats" didn't think of greatness when they created - they just did it.

    In my motivational quote box I have this quote, which says exactly what your post is saying:

    "I have never thought of writing for reputation and honour. What I have in my heart must come out; that is the reason I compose." Ludwig van Beethoven 1770 -1827

    I, too, prefer a work that is full of life and, more importantly, the heart and soul of the artist.

    Judy, South Africa

  7. Many thanks for your wonderful comments.

    Greetings from London.

  8. You are so sweet to visit !

    and i love your Rumi quote and the fab dancer in aqua.

    alas, i drifted from my blog alot.

    as for art- i agree that Kahlo,like many other greats, are able to capture the beauty or pain of the day in a way that honors the ordinary, the real, the simple authenticity of living !For it is the " messy vitality of life" which gives us its richesse!

    have a happy day

    ps did u hear about the syrian female blogger who is missing? Huff Post



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...