Do Not Disturb. Not all of the time, anyway.

Yay for bi-monthly (isn't it weird that the term means both "every two months" AND "twice a month"?) posting. Quick updates - yes, I have a job, it's at Future Shop, putting things on shelves so people can wallow in capitalism and excess. By the way, I'm only a hypocrite if denounce said excess, which I don't. I instead satirize and defame it, which is fine. I do pretty much the same thing with my own day-to-day life. In other news, pretty sure I know what I want to do with my life, but I want to talk to some people who's opinion and ability to think things through I value, before I ultimately dive in. Frankly, it will be a difficult road to get going on, and I'm not chock fulla time here - 30 is looming.

Anyway, on to the meat. I just happened to click on a link today, purely out of curiousity, about Barbara Streisand cussing out a heckler. I did so, expecting nothing more than a good chuckle at Babs' expense. I got that, but I also gleaned this gem from ol' Barbara, which nudged a cog and got the wheels turning, if you will:

"The artist's role is to disturb."

Now, while I don't consider myself some great artist of renown, I do feel I'm quite capable, as is just about anyone, of artistic expression. I also feel, had I trained hard and worked at it, I could have been considered a professional artist in one capacity or another. Looking at it from either point of view, I just can't agree with the above statement, at least not in the context she seemed to be placing it (link to full article here). Can an artist disturb with their work? Certainly, in fact some art is made specifically for that purpose. But to say an artist's role is to disturb is vaguely akin to saying a soldier's role is to kill (yes, I do heart the extreme examples).

Let's bring it back a notch, though, and assume she was talking more about "disturbing the normal way of thinking". I still can't agree that it's the artist's role to do that. Why can't some art be edifying, supporting, uplifting? Is it always about challenging paradigms and being "edgy"? Sometimes, it seems like that's what people demand from art, and if it's not there, then it's rehashed or kitsch or, God forbid, common.

To paraphrase what a musician once said "I like to think of my lyrics as more of a roadmap. There's a general idea there, but you can follow them to the destination you choose." Sounds a bit hippy, maybe, but think about it - if I make any kind of weighted statement in a group of as little as 10 people, chances are there is not going to be one uniform way in which my words were received. Now, if a simple statement has that chance of being interpreted differently, what are the chances that a more complex (hopefully) work of art could also have multiple interpretations, and inspire multiple feelings, reactions, and trains of thought across the same cross-section of people, and society as a whole?

I'm probably making mountains out of molehills here, but the statement jarred me. In the end, I'm not sure an artist should have a defined role. Art is about expression - song, dance, poetry, photo, illustration, media, comedy, drama, what have you - it all stems ultimately from wanting to express something, be it concrete idea, fleeting emotion, or something else in that near infinite spectrum. The role is not important, what's being expressed is. Let the artist just be the artist. Let the art take the role.

Next time on the Angry Mule: Pancakes. Why I want some.