Showing posts with label relationship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label relationship. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Giving up? Or merely letting go?

We must be willing to let go of the life we’ve planned, so as to have the life that is waiting for us. –Joseph Campbell
A Song of What Will Be
 
Daniell Koepke, founder of the Internal Acceptance Movement, speaks of the wide gap between what it means to give up and what it means to let go, to accept things as they are. She says, "There is a big difference between giving up and letting go. Giving up means selling yourself short. It means allowing fear and struggle to limit your opportunities and keep you stuck. Letting go means freeing yourself from something that is no longer serving you. Giving up reduces your life. Letting go expands it. Giving up is imprisoning. Letting go is liberation. Giving up is self-defeat. Letting go is self-care."

We've probably all struggled at some time or another with this difference and often our unwillingness to let go is a sign that we see that act as giving up, as failing to live up to our own standards or promises. We don't see letting go as an opportunity to change for the better or to move on to a greater sense of self-worth or happier relationships. Particularly when it comes to relationships, we have a tendency to cling to the past, even to romanticize or idealize them. Letting go of someone we have loved intensely, someone WE chose, seems both an admission of failure and a betrayal of a love we promised would be everlasting. Too often, even when someone breaks our hearts, we just cannot make ourselves let go. We lie to ourselves, in fact, calling our determination to stick it out even when the relationship is brutally demeaning an act of hope. 

I've watched friends hold on to relationships that were abusive, destructive and completely unfulfilling. I've stayed with relationships myself that totally undermined my self-esteem, convinced me that I was not "good enough" to merit a fully loving and intimate relationship. I've rationalized the choice to stay as the result of how I was raised, the way my Church defines love as all giving and no getting, self-sacrifice, and loving without expectations. To expect something from another is selfish love - or so I was led to believe. I've continued to love through hurt after hurt and comforted myself with the idea that I was a person of my word, faithful to my promises. That's all well and good but cold comfort when all one has at the end of the day - or a life - is a chimera.

But through all that I've learned a lot of valuable lessons and I hear the same thing from others who have finally been able to let go of the past - whether it involves a relationship, a career failure, a loss of a friend or loved one, a pet, or even one's long lost youth. Says American Buddhist teacher, Jack Kornfield, "To let go is to release the images and emotions, the grudges and fears, the clingings and disappointments of the past that bind our spirit." To let go is to release our spirit to soar and dive, to find its own heights and depths. To let go is to believe in a future that is "more." To let go is to forgive not only the "other" to which we cling, but ourselves for not having the courage to untie the ropes that have bound us to the past.

So it's important not to confuse giving up - on a dream, a relationship, a goal - with letting go and moving on to what is still possible, to becoming who we were meant to be. While this post is primarily about relationships, the same truth applies to our efforts in other areas of life too - our art, our careers, our lifestyle and health choices. We can't keep repeating the strategies of the past that did not work and expect them to work the next time! Don't give up - but do let go of what is not serving you. When I first tried to take this lesson to heart and put it into practice, I wrote this poem to express my willingness to finally "let go."

A song of what will be.

I released the anchors around a heart
that long tied me to a clouded past,
to heartache, need or suffering,
unknotted sturdy ropes that bound me
to a dock of mournful memories.
I've felt the churning chaos of life's storms,
wild whitecaps of my search for self,
endured those times I was becalmed,
adrift in open ocean without breeze
or sight of islands of safe refuge.
But now, as if by heaven's gift
I feel the westerlies begin to rise,
to clear ghostly cobwebs from the deck;
winds fill white sails to billowing,
and give gentle lift to my silvered hair.
I see myself standing at the helm
with new confidence and clarity,
a bright vision in my eager eyes
of inspiring ports of call to find
before life's journey ever ends.
With prayers to some universal source
as I set my course for parts unknown,
I imagine new horizons I will find
and give thanks for all my future joys.

Sunday, January 26, 2014

What makes art good...or bad?

[Disclaimer: the following quote is for the purpose of opening up the debate only, not the author's opinion.]
 "Abstract art: a product of the untalented sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered."
Al Capp

Grasshopper Luncheon
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/grasshopper-luncheon-lianne-schneider.html
To my friends out there who are abstract painters, or digital abstract artists, creators of fractals and geometric artworks, my apology for the use of such an opinionated quotation as my thought-provoking ice breaker. But I needed something outrageous to provoke a response to the question - what makes a work of art good...or bad? It's a subject I was debating with a young friend of mine who began his side of the debate with a response to my statement that what constitutes "art" is a very subjective thing. I touched on it briefly in a previous post on empathy - art is good when it creates an empathetic relationship in which the artist's feelings about a subject or object are not just seen but felt and shared by the individual "receiver."

My young friend disagreed - he said, "I don't agree that art is subjective...there is good and bad." He was supported by another friend who said, "All art, painting and the like, have to have good designs, values, color theory...even the most abstract." In other words, there are "rules" to follow in order for a work in any genre - painting, digital artwork, sculpture, music, dance - to qualify as good. By that standard, the work I posted above is far from good - it's technically all wrong, it has a lot of "digital noise" at full resolution. it's not as sharp or clear as it should be and...it's out of balance in terms of composition. Still, I like it...and apparently a lot of other people do too. Does that make it good art? For them maybe it does - some people out there seeing this, felt what I felt about nature and color and light...and grasshoppers! Yet another person, jumping in on my side of the debate said, "I think some people like to elevate art to some kind of euphoric experience every time they see a piece when in reality art is a connection between artist and patron." .

CHALLENGE: Take these two little quizzes (and if you went to art school no fair) and see if you come up with the same standard of "good" art that history and the critics have given us:
 

My young friend responded by saying that my liking a work was no measure of whether it has merit. Perhaps not - by my subjective response, I would have labeled Pollack bad art and a couple of paintings by dogs or cats as better (not good)! And I certainly would have placed several works by "unknown" artists above those considered great art according to some art critic somewhere. But the point I'm making really is who makes that decision...isn't it a bit of art snobbery to say that only work done with a real paintbrush, or with a film camera, or in marble rather than plastic wrap, or by some well known crooner like Perry Como from the 50s instead of Justin Bieber, is good art? 

I'm still saying that for both the artist and the receiver of the art there has to be a subjective relationship - I don't stand in front of a Bouguereau and measure to see if he kept the rule of thirds, whether he had the audacity to shade with black or whether his figures are larger than their backgrounds. I don't examine the Pieta and say Mary's hands are too big - in fact she's too big period. No I stand in awe - because those works of art speak to me and I don't care if they kept the rules. Think of Mozart - if you recall the film - the Emperor telling him his music had "too many notes" - it didn't meet the objective standard for "good" music then. 

Where would we be if individual artists hadn't tried to express their own vision in their own way regardless of the rules? We've entered the digital age - more and more art is created digitally today. Cameras come equipped with lenses and filters and editing software that can immediately improve or alter what the photographer actually saw with his/her eyes into something else entirely - something that expresses how he/she felt about what they were photographing. Is HDR photography less of an art form than the photo-montage and retouched images of Pierre et Gilles (who are listed among the top 100 most influential photographers of all time)? Is a true digital painting - done from scratch even if using some additional editing software - not just as much a painting as a Pollack? 

Art is only good when it expresses something honest about who the artist is and that something speaks to and is felt and experienced by the viewer/reader/listener. In my humble opinion that is.  Pollack himself said, "Every good painter paints what he is." (I've honestly no clue who that is but I'm sure some of you can relate and love his work). For myself, I will continue to evaluate an artwork the way Schopenhauer suggested: