Belinda wrote:XavierAlex can call the ability to tolerate loss 'art' if he likes. I don't think that this appellation is helpful to either the idea of a work of art or knowing how to tolerate loss.
True, people vary in their psychological coping strategies, and artists vary in their level of skill, bu this comparison is not sufficient to justify the claim.
Belinda, I agree. There is no art to tolerance. I think, though, that the best example I know of--a full withdrawal from family, friends, and society, in contemporary art--the nonfiction story about the adolescent who graduated from high school, cut all families ties, sold his car, burned all of his money, traveled around the US and Mexico. His goal, eventually, was to traverse the Alaskan Wilderness. He carried with him the unnecessary equipment and tools, ending up dying in the wilderness there. I think, the story is called: Into the Wild.
Although he didn't write his story or paint about it. There are almost no traces of him other than bits of evidence and anecdotes from those whom he encountered.
Into the Wild is an intriguing story, and an example of one individual living his philosophy and an art, maybe.
I always thought it was cruel of him to abandonment the people who may have loved him (that part of the story, I don't know.)
In this thread, the difference I think wouldn't be "losing" so much as it is self-reliance. Perhaps, the art is his complete rejection and abandonment of the society he lives in.
Perhaps, he disagreed with the political structure, civilization, and what other factors went through his head when he abandoned everything.
For some, people have families and properties and churches and whatever they feel thy have to lose, and they wouldn't dare dream of ever doing something like this. Others may see this was utter hubris (he died without "foresight" of the Alaskan wilderness). Yet others may dare to dream, but know they are ill-equipped for such a radical change.
August 6th, 2012, 11:53 pm
