a-wop-bop-a-loo-bop; a-lop-bam-boom; we da folks dat walked on da moon

As usual, Sean T. Collins shines out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark.

Long-time readers of the daily update will remember that it was Sean who made me see that blogs were a viable means of communication in the first place, so it should come as no surprise that Sean is the guy who made me see where the disconnect was between me and the folks who had a problem with me saying "the work is the work." Seems hard to believe that people would put forward that the air isn’t the air or that the white nectarine isn’t the white nectarine or that the work isn’t the – you know – the work… but there you go. People’ve been saying it.

But anyway, Sean has written that "But sometimes what you want a given work of art to be is what it probably should have been." And that sentence made me finally understand where the bloggers who have been paying attention to our stuff are coming from. I mean, it’s all just perspective, and point-of-view. A critic of a work who wants to address what a work "should have been" is speaking to what he wants and not what is. So that’s cool; I get it, now. Sean writes: "Sometimes authors make the wrong choices in terms of what to show or how to show it" and I’m one of those cats who think an author can’t make a wrong choice if that’s what the author wants to show. An outside observer just can’t make that distinction for an author, by definition. A critic can think "it didn’t work for him" or that "jeez, that isn’t what I would do here" or whatever but it’s not wrong, you know?

Sean writes: "The author can say ‘No, no, it's exactly the way I wanted it -- it's your problem if you don't like the view,’ but that doesn't make it so." And I have to disagree and say that that is exactly what that means. If an author tells you his work is exactly how he wants it and you, personally, don’t like it, well… so what? All that means is that you don’t like it. The author still completed what he wanted to complete. A hundred million people saying they didn’t get it or don’t like it or think this should happen doesn’t matter because a hundred million other people are gonna think it’s the best thing since sliced wheat bread. Seriously. For every critic who thinks a work is crap there’s a critic who thinks a work is genius. Who’s right? Who cares? The author got what the author wanted, so the work is the work. There you have it.

Anyone who strives to make art thinks that what they produce is the best piece of art ever. If they don’t, they’re subject to all sorts of doubt and ennui and agony and eventually cannot produce their art anymore, exposed to the whims of their observers as they are. Eventually, the paralysis of indecision overcomes them, and they can’t produce art any longer, addressing, as they do, the needs of the audience instead of the needs of their muse.

Here’s what Sean made me understand: critics critique for an audience; artists produce art for themselves. The Peanut Gallery and me are in two different spots, is all. And... that's OK. Neither one of us is gonna sway the other... nor should we.

H over at The Comic Treadmill mentions that he’s picked up some Demo, Astronauts in Trouble, and some Scurv. So we’ll see what H makes of it.

Laura Gjovaag looked at Demo #7 and read it twice.

John Jakala notes that Entertainment Weekly gives Hench an A- which gave Adam Beechen and Manny Bello and me and Meem a pretty good weekend, believe me.

…and please click over to Loose Cannon #9, from March 9, 2001, wherein we discuss "terroir" and "arete." C’mon, how can you not click through? You mean to tell me you know what "terroir" and "arete" mean? Hit the link, and be illuminated.