in which Lydia considers making a zine and ponders weighty questions

I've been thinking about creating a zine. I know, I'm like 20 years late on that. But maybe it's never too late- really. It's strange that I've never done this before. My journals already include text and pictures, and most of my very favorite artists are actually illustrators. But I seem to have some kind of block when it comes to creating a narrative. Sure- writing is- by nature- sequential. Language is sequential. You start somewhere- and go somewhere. Not like a picture where it's all there in one shot. Two halves of our brains process this different kind of information differently. Even journals- even blogs- are sequential. But the idea of creating a zine stresses me out- I think because I feel that there needs to be a beginning, middle and an end- and wrapping up a structured story seems so limiting and final. Or maybe it just seems too difficult. Maybe because I'm just not good at the planning-out-in-advance part. When I write- I have only the vaguest notion about where things might lead--- and maybe it was those middle-school writing teachers that told us to write like a hero sandwich- with the whole thing mapped out in advance- that made me think I couldn't write- didn't want to write- because they killed all the fun in it. Or maybe my lazy brain would just prefer to come up with reasons why *not* to do something challenging and new and- if I'm honest- a little bit scary- than to actually just go ahead and do the damned thing. But I know that these worries are silly too- because a zine is just a zine! I could poop on a piece of paper and make 100 photocopies and fold it up and sell it and it would be ok.

There's also a part of me that resists combining art and literary things because they're (ahem) "illustrative"- like that's a dirty word or something. I actively fight against the training in "fine art" which I've received- that taught me these notions of hierarchy- what is "fine"??? Fine art is in galleries and museums. Other kinds of art like advertising, comics, book illustration, graffiti are not really art at all. It's a really old-fashioned way of looking at things- and mostly anyone now will recognize the important role that comics, advertising, illustration and graffiti play in fine arts. I mean- where would art be without pop art? 20th Century artists like Lichtenstein, Warhol and Basquiat turned "fine art" upside down and expanded our definition of art. Feminist artists like Faith Ringold brought fabric art and "woman's art" and "crafts" to the galleries. Post-modernism brought the margins further into the center- expanding our definition of art to include art made by self-taught artists, art by disabled individuals, "outsider art"- Even conservative artists in academia recognize that today- but when I was in school in the 90's... when I was growing up in the 80's... this wasn't yet taken for granted. Pop artists were seen as the exception- the rules hadn't yet been re-written. And I think there are still lingering old-fashioned notions of this hierarchy hanging around- like cobwebs in the corners. Some rooms are dustier than others.

So even though I've always really been drawn to illustration- especially graphic novels and illustrated children's books, I've been taught that the "Fine Art" doesn't illustrate. Art shouldn't spell things out. It shouldn't knock you over the head with a message. Meaning- if there is any at all- should be veiled and vague. Maybe there's some merit to that. I mean- that's the way art is- isn't it? Look at William Wiley's art- a guy who breaks so many rules already- but those really large paintings filled with writing that look like they came out of one of my journals It hint at symbols and stories but nothing is totally clear. Maybe that's some kind of dada tradition: the notion that art's supposed to confuse you- or at least to ask more questions than it answers. But often I feel like there's an element of the Emperor's New Clothes in this whole thing.

When I was in college, I knew something was "conceptual art" when I honestly had no idea what the fuck I was looking at. Maybe people in the art community want to keep the rest of the world wondering. If it's too clear- too easy- then artists' aren't doing it right. What's the point of being in an absurd profession if other people actually understand what it is that you're doing?

It's not that I think that art must (always) be accessible and clear. Most great artists are brilliant- and they don't need to make art that's simplistic. There's nothing I love more than looking at a painting and "getting" an artists' little in-joke or reference- especially when I'm sure that I'm the only one in the immediate vicinity who "gets it"= like my own personal easter egg! I also love it when, once in a while, I can put that art degree that I'll probably never pay off- to work by dazzling somebody with a complex explanation about some art historical context for something.

But I guess the thing I struggle with is the limitations that I feel have been placed on me as an artist- and the ways in which certain elements of my art education has had the effect of stifling my creativity and limiting my expression rather than enhancing and expanding it. One might argue (and in fact, I'm SURE I can remember a conversation not-very-long-ago when this argument has been made) that in order to define something, you must, by definition- define what it is NOT. You can't say what "IS" without saying what "ISN'T"- you can't have something in the mix without leaving something out. If you have an unlimited open approach to your definition to art- if anything and absolutely everything is/can be "ART" then in effect- NOTHING IS ART. If you don't define what art IS- in part by saying what art is NOT- then the notion of "Art" ceases to have any meaning at all. And ART means too much to too many people than to let that happen!


Well sure. But a more important question is: who exactly gets to say what art IS and what art ISN'T? Things come into- and fall out of fashion. Our notion of what "Art" is- is always growing and changing. Art will always be- in a large part- about 500 year old paintings- in museums- the old masters and classics. But it will always be (and probably always was) about the sexy new kids with their wild ideas- upending everything and breaking the rules. Because Art is about creativity- and without new ideas- without taking risks- without making things up- things get old- and they cease to be art.

I think the last time I had this conversation, when I rejected a reductionist approach to art while talking with an art professor, the reply I got was something along the lines of- "this is academia- you came to me as the expert- I get to define the terms." I don't think it's too idealistic to expect someone in academia to be open to new ideas! In fact- the whole notion of examining our assumptions- defining and redefining our terms- IS an academic question. If you can't ask these kinds of questions within the halls of academia- where the fuck are you supposed to ask them? We learn and think and examine ideas where? In universities- including (perhaps especially) the things that our professors say. I'm not trying to reject helpful criticism-- I'm just hoping for something more constructive- A little Socratic dialog in my critique... and not something that devolves into "because I'm the teacher and I say so."

I have to note- that while I've disagreed with about 90% of anything this particular professor ever said to me- I've also spent about 4x as much thinking about WHY than I ever spent talking to the man... and that, in itself is SOMETHING valuable- for sure.

OK- some people might say that this whole business of asking "what is art" is about as boring and pointless and hackneyed as staying up all night having a conversation about "what is punk rock?" Well- personally- I never get tired of either- because I've approached both subjects countless times and the outcome has never been the same. OK- I have this sneaky feeling that it's absolutely "uncool" to admit that- and it's "uncool" to care that I said something "uncool" and oh-gasp- I've fallen into the neverending spiral of uncool-self-consciousness... but to me it's like drawing a self portrait, or painting a tree- there are so many unlimited ways to approach it that the process and outcome is different every time.

So getting back to this zine thing--- I think there's a part of me that says that because I've been trained as a "fine artist" (after making a conscious decision to take that path)- that I can't ever use my art for anything useful. Any application of my art into anything productive- make it "not art" and makes me "not an artist." It's like I'm an alchemist- but if I turn my lead into gold- I can't ever spend it- because that would make it "not gold." Or maybe I'm just really afraid that if I tried to spend all this gold that I've been making- I'll discover that is really only yellow lead. If I actually go through with this and make a zine- it'll be stupid- nobody will like it- it won't make any sense- it'll be too obvious- to dumb- too... just too "too". If I don't DO it can't be too TOO- can it?

I also know that making a zine doesn't make me any less of an artist- any more than cooking supper, walking the dog, or making a budget spreadsheet at work makes me any less of an artist. Well- the non-art job thing- that's a HUGE issue for me- something that I need to address in another post at another time. Because sometimes I worry that it DOES make me less of an artist. Or maybe that's exactly the topic that I should choose for my first zine. This obviously won't be the first time that question's been addressed- but (and maybe because I spend 40+ hours a week in an air conditioned office looking at budgets instead of making art and talking with other artists) when I DO read about it- from other artists who write- it causes a huge "a-ha" for me. So yeah- I feel like it's something that I need to work out- but also maybe it's something that folks either don't think about and might appreciate reading about- or DO think about and might appreciate reading about.

Or maybe- if I ever write this goddamned zine- maybe nobody will bother to pick it up and read it at all. And maybe that's ok. I'm sure that won't be the first time THAT has happened. Plenty of great writers go unread- just like plenty of great artists make art that remains unlooked-at. That doesn't stop geographers and musicians from taking photos and make paintings and even pooping on canvas... and that's ok too. It's all art. Or it's not. Who's to say?