Amy Ward
Artists After Hours #2
Jon Menick
Grey Eagle
April 1, 2003
(3.25 pages)
Well this was an interesting experience.
The setting for the AAH had enough
character of it’s
own, and then to listen to a speaker who gets up and says the greatest
speech writer was Abraham Lincoln
with his 2.5 minute speech. While Jon went slightly
over 2.5 minutes,
he still managed to impart wisdom and let us loose in a considerably
shorter amount of
time than any other guest. At first I felt somewhat gypped, but as
I
think back on that
time, I wonder – perhaps there was more to it than I thought.
So Jon seems to think that an artist
is someone different from the rest, someone
who suffers to do something great
because they have this relentless drive to get the stuff
that’s in them out and move onto
the next thing – trying desperately to perfect it. He says
that it’s a hard
won, hard fought and difficult stuff, not just pretty things that make your
day better.
So right away I thought what makes him the authority on what art is?
I think that I’m more of an artist
than the average person, but I also think that a
lot of people are
more artistic than most people realize. I think that I could
be “an artist” if
I tried, or put
enough time into it – but isn’t society the one who finally decides?
And even
then isn’t it left
up to the individual to accept or reject that definition? I never know
what to
say when people
ask me if I’m an artist. Perhaps I should answer with a statement of
what
I do instead of
“yes” or “no”. (Are you an artist? – I do a lot of different things,
yeah).
When he started talking about wanting
to leave behind a legacy, and that he didn’t
want to die without
a purpose, I wanted to slip him a note that said, “You need Christ, he
gives purpose to
everything.” Seriously though, when he was talking about the art that
has
survived throughout
the ages to today, what is it that has lasted? Sculpture, paintings,
most
of them with religious
significance. How many are just commentaries on society? And
how
many plays survive
in their original form. With a painting, you have the artist’s intention,
and
then you have the
interpretation of each viewer. With a play you have the playwrights
original
intention, the director’s
interpretation, the actor’s interpretation and the viewer’s perception.
The whole piece changes dramatically
over time and from director to director, from actors.
What is more secure
in its originality? Unless, of course, the whole idea was to have different
interpretations.
Do people do that?
Jon talked about how hard it is to
be a good artist and how when you act you have
to include the other person;
it’s not just you. You have to draw everyone else into the person
you’re representing as well,
not just the people you’re acting with. It’s a collective experience.
So you have to dig
deep inside to find this person you’re portraying, and keep your senses
out into the world
as well, to have that person be affected and in tune with what’s going on
around. It
really reminded me a lot of when Olivier came to talk to us about what it
takes to
truly influence the audience.
Then he talked about how no one’s truly
going to understand and appreciate your
work and all the
effort you put into it because it was sooo hard. I suppose this is
why I really
like realism in
art – because it’s so hard for me to do. I can do abstract expressionism
all day,
it comes easily for me, but realism
takes intense concentration and hard work. It makes my
brain hurt. And yet, my
art teacher in High School was always fascinated with expressionistic
stuff. I think
it’s valid what he said about the difference between Sylvester Stalone and
Marlin
Brando and how MB’s
vulnerability is what made him so great. I think it’s true that people
need to see the
reality of whatever’s being portrayed. They need to see the brushstrokes,
the texture, the
shimmer of light, the strain in the eyes, etc. No art form is completely
void
of the reality of
life, even Sylvester had to deal with bad hair.
It was once said that those who can,
do; and those who cant, teach. I think that rather,
those who can, do, and then teach.
Even if they don’t go into professional teaching as Jon did,
they still teach
those around them, those who act with them, those who observe their art and
take
something away from
it. True artists teach. A pretty picture of butterflies may be
soothing, but it
doesn’t do much
teaching. I have a poster of a bright orange tiger racing along a beach
with
brilliant blue waves
behind him. The contrast of the orange and blue makes a striking image
and
then to find a tiger on the beach.
The power held in that is more than the image, but also in the
lesson it teaches. Life
can surprise you in powerful ways.
So Jon was directing a play by Alan
Ball called “Five Women Wearing The Same
Dress” and we even
got 10 extra points if we went to see it, but I was never impressed with
the
idea of “American Beauty” and
this didn’t seem that it would be very different. Of course Jon
recommended it,
but he’s the director. And there was no other information about what
to
expect. I
even went online and tried to figure out what it was about, no luck.
Perhaps next
time I’ll be able to adventure
out into this undoubtedly unique experience.
I think the big difference between
Jon’s life before and after his 50th birthday was his
change in his perception
of what life is all about. He’s still learning from life, he’s still
involved
in acting and creating “droppings
of immortality” – something that he did even in his earlier years.
He’s still building his understanding
of what acting is about and he’s still learning from other people.
It’s just that now
he has the approach that he has something to teach. That always adds
a new
spark of life and
purpose. So I wish him the best of luck and success in his life.
Maybe he’ll
decide to move again,
if he does, I’m sure it will be a great adventure.