Explanation: Earlier this morning, while googling something and eating my daily muesli, I came across my own old article about compromising. Since I never think twice before writing a blog text, it often happens to strongly dislike it the next day. In terms of one’s “literary” discipline, that’s inadmissible.
I know very well that a good text I have written (or a good painting I have done) is held valuable in the next day (or in the next years), when I manage to look at it with a cool eye. As a rule, I never check my blog archives because I need my daily peace of mind for concentrating on my (held serious for some reason) non-online projects; and the faulty lines found on this site may be a serious threat to my obsessive belief in perfection. Therefore, when I accidentally came across the text below, I was surprised not to be disappointed with it. So I thought of sharing it again. Since you, the ones reading my blog today, aren’t here from time immemorial…Repetition is good. Repetition makes life look safe. So: There are many ways of getting yourself compromised. And none of them is easy. As a matter of fact, making a good compromise is an art. You are supposed to know exactly where you stand; then to design every single step you need for “getting low”; and finally to have a very good preview-idea about how the compromised outcome should look like. Does any of these steps sound easy to you? A self-awarness, a suitable perspective on yourself, as an artist, is so rare that one simply can conclude right from the start that compromising is actually a too difficult job for ourdays artists. Because, as a premise, they first need to be valuable; you can’t come downstairs without previously finding yourself upstairs. When Bowie danced down the street in 1983 he knew the steps very well. He was actually a brilliant dancer. He artfully compromised his (dead by that time) Ziggy which makes me wonder if a commercial turning-point in one’s art, as long as it is made with highly valuable tools, can really be called “compromise”. It goes just the same with Cohen’s making use of synthesizers in the 80′s. He changed the beat, he kept the heart. As for us, the objective listeners, we just had to attest and accept the change of the musical tools while going on with worshiping the inner vibe.
I would say that a compromise is a fruitful compromise as long as 1. the artist did it on purpose, 2. it’s reversible, 3. it came straightly from an un-compromised past, 4. it leads to good outcome instead of sounding and looking ridiculous.
I would like to add a few comments regarding condition no. 1 and condition no. 4.
There is one thing to say concerning the 1st condition: I think that the very wise Sgt Pepper shows us a sort of “compromise in reverse”. Suddenly the whole previous Beatles’s “easy way” of making music was wonderfully relativized. Because only the mighty guys can “get dynamic”, sliding back and forth, making an impressive swerving and juggling. The “usual” guys are bound to walk their tight path over and over again.
As for the last 4th condition, there are many things to add. Some souls are so talented that, in the end, regardless of their style of singing/writing/painting, they cannot be but suitable and artful. I will give you one particular example from literature. Did you hear about Fernando Pessoa? He was a Portuguese poet that has published his works under three different names; moreover, behind the three names seemed to hide three totally different personalities: Alberto Caeiro was an apparently simple, symbolist poet, Ricardo Reis was a follower of the classical ancient style while Alvaro de Campos was a pure modernist. The three men were all brilliant. Pessoa handled his “multiple” personality with an infinite awareness. He needed Caeiro, de Campos and Reis for solving out all his creative moves that happened to be definite alike and valuable alike. Then Picasso himself had a particular creation period (around 1925) when he got more abstract than could anyone imagine by that time. Chagall got to learn how to make lithographs at a very late moment of his life and he earn good money by working in a printing studio. His prints are no less valuable than his paintings. A good artist is bound to create good art, regardless the topic, regardless the means, regardless the tools. A good compromise is, in this sense, a non-sense. A good compromise is, in this sense, a fine, dynamic art.
PS: I’ve recently read that Marie Fredriksson (from Roxette) said that she, from now on, doesn’t want to compromise anymore in her solo work. And I suddenly remembered that there is a certain category of artists that always talk about compromising more or compromising less even though they never really got low; or high. Not every life/art changing decision implies a slalom between compromise and uncompromise. I’m afraid one needs to go with one’s art from A to Z in order to gain the right to invoke or reject compromising…
PS2: foto taken from bowiewonderworld.com
Some people never take a single step without setting a trap first.
