Tag: art

The Illusion of Effortlessness

April 5, 2021 / Kyle A. Massa

talent

Jordan’s jump shot. Aretha’s voice. Shakespeare’s wit. Cage’s acting.

These people and their talents have one thing in common (except the last one—that was a joke). They all appear effortless.

As someone who loves writing, I’ve noticed this phenomenon in my chosen craft. I’m listening to an audiobook by Neil Gaiman right now, for example, and all I can think of after every story is, Wow. He’s so talented. I’ve gotten into the audio game of late, and even Neil’s reading feels effortless.

Of course, it isn’t. Mastery conceals years of practice spent honing a craft. We’ll never see the millions of shots Michael Jordan missed to perfect his form, nor the countless hours Aretha Franklin spent in church singing her favorite songs, nor the numerous revisions Shakespeare no doubt made to his plays. And even Nicolas Cage probably practices his freakouts.

This illusion can be understandably frustrating, especially for those striving for equivalent mastery. I want to become a full-time writer someday, so when I read a superb book that’s sold millions of copies, I always feel a little jelly.

Why can’t it be that easy for me? I wonder. Why can’t I have that kind of natural talent?

Here’s what I need to remind myself: Effortlessness is an illusion.

That’s not to say natural skill doesn’t exist; some musicians are born with perfect pitch, for example. But no one achieves mastery from innate skill alone. Practice, dedication, and perseverance are essential, no matter how effortless the final product might appear.

Why write this? Because I forget it all the time, which makes me think others do, too. Sometimes we envy people for their skills, all the while forgetting that we could achieve the same proficiency—or even surpass it—by working hard. Natural talent is places some further ahead than others before the starting gun sounds. But hard work can close the gap.

Next time you compare yourself to someone else, remember that effortlessness is an illusion. They got where they are by working hard—and that means you can do the same.

Unless you want to act like Nicolas Cage, that is. No amount of practice will get you there.

Kyle A. Massa is a speculative fiction author living somewhere in upstate New York with his wife, their cats, and their dog. He has written two books and numerous short stories, both published and yet-to-be published. He enjoys unusual narrative structures, multiple POVs, and stories that make readers laugh.

Is All Art Really Quite Useless?

November 25, 2019 / Kyle A. Massa

Oscar Wilde

In the forward to his novel The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde famously wrote, “All art is quite useless.” No question mark at the end.

This statement puzzles me. Why would an artist say art is useless? Did he really believe that? You could interpret this statement as an introduction to the themes later explored in the novel, but I’m not sure I do.

Because when asked by a fan what this famous line meant, Wilde responded with a handwritten letter. In this letter, Wilde posited that art does not and should not inspire action in anyone. If it does, it ceases to be art and instead turns into didacticism. Therefore, if art cannot by its very nature inspire action, then it has no applicable use to anyone.

Oscar Wilde was a brilliant guy. I don’t claim to be smarter than him or a better writer than him. And I’m certainly not a better dresser (see above picture). But I’ll say this: I think art is quite useful.

Art is useful in the way that it moves us. If a work of art can stir emotion, whether it’s delight, sadness, anger, or even disgust, I’d say it’s done something quite significant. After all, if you cried when Bambi’s mom bit the dust (don’t deny it), you cried for a cartoon animal that only ever existed as a series of drawings shown in rapid succession. What else but art has the power to make us care about things that don’t even exist?

Even art that serves merely as distraction, what Wilde describes as “sterile” art, can be useful. Because sometimes we really do need a distraction from reality. When times are tough, it’s cathartic to watch a TV show or read a book—to take a break from what’s going on around us. Art won’t necessarily present us with permanent solutions, but that’s alright. Oftentimes that brief respite gives us the strength we need to face tomorrow’s challenges.

Art helps us better understand each other, which is perhaps one of its most important uses. For example, numerous studies suggest that reading improves empathy. When we step into the minds of characters, their thoughts and feelings are described to us, which bridges a gap we otherwise can’t cross (excluding telepaths). If empathy is understanding how others feel, there’s no better way to develop it than by having those feelings explained to us.

So is all art really quite useless? Well, maybe some of it (the Transformers series of films come to mind). But certainly not all of it. If a particular piece of art moves you, or helps you get through a tough time, or shows you the world from a different perspective, then that piece of art is useful. Quite useful.

Kyle A. Massa is a speculative fiction author living somewhere in upstate New York with his wife and their two cats. His stories have appeared in numerous online magazines, including Allegory, Chantwood, and Dark Fire Fiction.

Art, Artists, Money, and Fans

October 22, 2018 / Kyle A. Massa

My favorite band is The Who. I love their energy, their live performances, and their unique blend of raucous energy and thoughtful storytelling. I also love Keith Moon’s drumming.

But if you read enough about Keith Moon, you’ll find he wasn’t always the nicest guy. He was a constant drunk who caused thousands of dollars of property damage throughout his life. His wild behavior even led to the accidental death of a friend, an act which would haunt him the rest of his life.

That’s not all. Pete Townshend and John Entwistle, the guitarist and bassist of the band, both regularly cheated on their wives, much like many musicians during that era.

So then. What if I like the art, yet don’t support the behavior of the artist? Is it still okay for me to listen to their music?

That’s the question we’ll address today. As fans and consumers of art, can we enjoy art without supporting the behavior of the artists who make it?

The Financial Aspect

Sticking with the rock music theme, AC/DC understood the value of money to artists. In fact, they immortalized it by taking the phrase “Money Talks” and turning it into a song. (Theirs is stylized as “Moneytalks,” but you get the idea.)

For artists, money does talk. It says, “I came from a fan who likes your work and wants you to make more.” Money is the best way to support the things you care about. Word of mouth is good, tweeting is fine, but the almighty dollar ensures artists make more art.

The Problem Grows

Art is never made in isolation. Even solitary authors have alpha and beta readers, editors, sometimes publishers or agents. And then there are films, which sometimes have thousands of people working on them. Have you ever sat through the credits for The Lord of the Rings trilogy? It’s like another movie in and of itself.

It takes a team to turn art into reality. Which expands the scope of the topic we’re examining. When we support art financially, we’re supporting not just one person, but many.

So what if the second unit director on the latest Marvel film is a psychopathic cannibal, ala Hannibal Lector? (I’m sure she or he is not, but bear with me here.) I’m guessing you don’t support cannibalism. Yet your opening night movie ticket supports the film that the second unit director made. So, in a way, you’re supporting a cannibal. (Again, I’m sure the second unit director for Captain Marvel or whatever doesn’t really eat people.) Now we see the conundrum. It’s not just one person you’ve got to worry about—it’s possibly thousands!

There’s No Simple Answer

There really isn’t. I’ve thought about this constantly, especially in regards to my favorite genre of music, classic rock. The more you read about male rock musicians of the 60s and 70s, the more you realize they were on the whole not very nice people. Many of them were drunks, adulterers, and misogynists. Not all, but many.

Now one might argue the solution is to only pay for art made by artists whose morals align with yours. And hey, that’s your prerogative. The thing is, you might miss out on some great work. Furthermore, we’ve seen this tactic backfire before.

Though it’s not quite a perfect comparison, take Lance Armstrong and his Livestrong Foundation as an example. When I was growing up, I saw those yellow bracelets every day. Yet in 2012 and onward, when Armstrong’s doping scandal went public, the bracelets vanished. People stopped their donations to the Livestrong Foundation, all because of its founder’s actions.

When we frame this example in the art/artist mold, we clearly see the problem. The art (in this case, cancer research) is clearly deserving of support. Yet it doesn’t get that support because people disapprove of the artist (who is in this case, Lance Armstrong).

Maybe the you-can’t-support-the-art-without-supporting-the-artist argument doesn’t always work. By the way, I’m working on a trademark for that name, since it rolls off the tongue so well.

Can Anyone Separate the Art from the Artist?

Based on the argument I’ve made, you might be wondering if you can ever appreciate art again. What if you really love a book but really detest its author?

I’m not in the business of telling people what they should and shouldn’t like or spend money on. The purpose of this article is not to dissuade you from any art. Rather, it’s just to explore a topic I and others have thought about at length.

Furthermore, I don’t mean to make it sound like all artists are jerks. Artists are just like anyone else—some are jerks, but the vast majority are good people you’d be happy to support.

Anyway, I believe the answer is both yes and no. It all depends on the fan.

That’s Us!

As a fan, we absolutely have the right to spend where we want to. If you choose not to listen to the music of The Who because Keith Moon was kinda nuts, it’s your right to do so. You can donate to Livestrong because you like what they do—never mind the association with Lance Armstrong.

I think this common axiom about art applies well: When you release it into the world, it’s no longer yours. If fans treat art this way, that might allow us to be more okay with artists who aren’t necessarily people we want to emulate. We can at least feel like the work is separate from the artist. For some fans, this might be an important skill to develop. Many artists are good people who we would probably be friends with if we met them. Some might not be. And if we can separate the artists from the art, we’ll have a much easier time being fans.

So for all the Who fans out there, keep on loving Keith Moon’s drumming. I know I will.