Grey Eyed Bandit
Master of Arts
Hatsumi sensei frequently draws comparison between budo and fine arts. Thus, what follows is a scathing criticism of the Bujinkan as it exists today, masqueraded as a series of questions and answers about the nature of arts in general. Those of you who know, know.
Let's get to it.
Question: Can knowledge solve my artistic problems?
Short answer: Only if you manage to put it to use.
Long answer: Roughly 800 people are killed by toaster ovens in the US each year, but only around nine or ten are killed by shark attacks. That's useful information that one would like to have. However, it doesn't mean that people are more afraid of toasters than they are of sharks, even if they should. Many people would rather die than give up their erroneous beliefs in favor of facts.
Question: Should you do something good?
Short answer: Not necessarily.
Long answer: The pressure many people feel to do good things is powerful as well as a bit touching, because it draws attention away from what the person in question is really interested in, and leads him/her towards the established and generally popular ideals that happens to be the talk of the town at that particular time.
It's better to do something and then consider it to be good (which is what many people do with their children) rather than to try to turn whatever it is you've done into something good (which, sadly, a lot of people also do with their children). Many works of art that have historically been considered important are often reflections of the spirit of their respective ages. If people had tried to make something good instead of something true it wouldn't have become as important, the will to do something good can often be seen as a kind of self-censorship.
Question: If you were to give one single piece of advice to a budding artist, what would it be?
Short answer: Paint the sky first and then the trees so you won't have to fit the the sky in between all the branches.
Long answer: If you want to get somewhere, you should see your work as a logical and practical process. Many people never reach the results they had wished for and instead get stuck in some meaningless physical problem, which is where a lot of silly axioms like "the path is the goal" have originated. They're used by people who've never walked the entire length of the path and actually arrived.
Question: What is art?
Short answer: A question.
Long answer: Just as a physicist is a collection of atoms trying to figure out what an atom is, so art is an invention whose purpose it is to find out just what art actually is.
Question: Don't you run the risk of deteriorating with age?
Short answer: You're kidding, right?
Long answer: No one has ever found out anything after the age of thirty, case in point - Einstein. He figured out everything as a young man and spent the remainder of his life pondering the so-called Grand Unified Theory, which he never managed to finalize. People get more experienced with age and as such are able to further develop their ideas, however the realizations come early or never at all. This is why many important works are made by ageing artists, more refined versions of the slightly clumsily performed discoveries of youth. Both stages are equally important but throughout the times, one of them has usually been considered "cooler" than the other. Avoid pretending to be part of one group when you actually belong to the other.
Question: Isn't it enough to just do whatever you want?
Short answer: Who knows what they want?
Long answer: Many people have way too large a distance between what they really want and that they think they really want. Their ideals make them confused. When the discrepancy between what you're doing and whom you really are becomes too great, indifference slips in through the gap, and even though everything looks good it doesn't really feel like all that any more. Or as Nas once put it, "when you do make the whip you like your chips ain't right, by the time you can afford it the car ain't important".
Question: Does rebelling actually serve a purpose?
Short answer: Yes, it's good for your self-confidence.
Long answer: Rebelling against something means that you know something others don't, that you've seen through all the lies, understood how bad things really are and usually you also know exactly how everything is supposed to be instead. That is a nice feeling to have. However, both the rebel and the conservative are dependent on that which endures. Thus, the danger of rebelling is that you might sacrifice your independence for the simple sake of a slight boost in self-confidence.
Question: Why do so many people have a hard time understanding art?
Short answer: Because there rarely is anything there for you to understand.
Long answer: Many people tend to confuse not understanding something with not liking it, it's usually a case of the latter when the former is spoken. However, ever since modernism begun artists have attempted to create new languages in art, if you step into a room full of people who've created new languages you're bound to be more than a little confused. Having invented a new language doesn't mean that you actually have something to say, however. Not too long ago, the artistic language was common to all people in a given culture. Everyone understood the picture on the church wall, back then the message was more important than creating a new language.
You can't understand someone who hasn't said anything, but you can like him.
Question: Which viewpoint should one espouse in terms of politics?
Short answer: A simple one, preferably also as extreme as possible.
Long answer: Having a simple and not inherently self-contradictory worldview with simple solutions often gives people plenty of power and incentive, since they don't have to waste time and energy on doubt, compromises or they weighing of pro's and con's. It's only when one's 100 percent sure that one is right that one's able to focus all one's energy into one's words and actions, regardless of how stupid they are.
Question: Are experiments important?
Short answer: Yes, but only before setting up shop.
Long answer: A chef, for instance, is able to experiment with different ingredients, but a restaurant that only serves the chef's "experiment of the day" wouldn't be in business for very long, since the purpose of experimenting should be to develop something that might eventually be considered a classic. No one should experiment for the sole purpose of creating an experiment. Experiments are fine but whenever they start turning into conventions, one should be wary. Apart from the fact that they rarely are enjoyable at that point, they've also lost their innovative function.
Question: Is it true that one only becomes known after one's death?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: 99, 99 percent of all the artists in the history of the world are made known during their lifetimes, when they die they're usually forgotten. A few exceptions occurred during the end of the 19th century, and it may very well take tens of thousands of years before that rare historical occurrence repeats itself.
Question: How do I become successful?
Short answer: Make someone happy.
Long answer: Success depends on someone having something to gain from what you're doing, whether it's them having their ideals and beliefs confirmed or being compensated ideologically, economically, aesthetically or otherwise. That is, if you're referring to success in the eyes of others. If you mean successful as pertaining to yourself, all you need is megalomania.
Question: How does one learn?
Short answer: By misunderstanding.
Long answer: You repeat and mimic, after a while you misunderstand something, at which point something of your own is created, which you then go on to repeat and mimic until you misunderstand yourself as well - and ta-da! You've learned something. Knowledge is whatever convention that happens to be the dominant one at that particular point in time, and in order to not get stuck too early one should avoid conventions, such as the convention of avoiding conventions.
Question: Is criticism beneficial?
Short answer: Yes, if pro. No, if con.
Long answer: Criticism in a learning environment is usually beneficial, since it's purpose is to improve the student's results. Criticism in new articles and whatnot varies in quality and usefulness. It may be intended to be helpful but often comes across as polemic and as intended to have the opinion of it's originator seem like the correct one. The purpose of criticism always shines through. The problem with criticism is that it's point of origin always lies in what the critic is already familiar with, and as such, it is always automatically conservative - it's impossible to have a valid opinion on a subject matter with which one's not familiar.
Question: Why do people think that some things look good?
Short answer: Because they're normal.
Long answer: Experiments have been made where ten people have been photographed, after which a digital portrait of an "average" person was created. These eleven pictures were then shown to the test subjects who were told to say which person was the best-looking. Very few people found the eleventh portrait to be the most attractive. People are very likely genetically pre-disposed to like what's normal for breeding reasons.
Question: Is it true that artists were much more skilled and knowledgeable in older days?
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: People are born as idiots who don't know or understand anything, and they die wise, filled to the brim with knowledge. Is that one of nature's mistakes? No, the problem is that it is much harder to get rid of knowledge than to obtain it. All knowledge stands in the way of progress just as dinosaurs stood in the way of primates. The small, ugly mammals that survived the natural disaster(s) that killed off the strong, fast and smart velociraptors weren't in any way better, it's just that the alternative to extinction is stagnation.
If dear, old and wisened artists never died, we'd have to shoot them. Not because they were wrong - in that case, they would have been harmless - but because they were right.
Question: How does one discuss art in an intelligent manner, at a party, for instance?
Short answer: One agrees.
Long answer: This is close to impossible. What's important is to have the listener come across as intelligent, and if one wants to make a statement, it's important to phrase it in such a way that it seems like it was actually the listener who came up with it. Going on forever about the intricacy of Hokusai's waves is pointless and usually only seems ridiculous, because just as is the case with sports, people tend to stick with a certain team whether or not they're any good. Even better is to remain quiet. No one wants to be told that they have the wrong opinions, especially not the ones with wrong opinions.
Let's get to it.
Question: Can knowledge solve my artistic problems?
Short answer: Only if you manage to put it to use.
Long answer: Roughly 800 people are killed by toaster ovens in the US each year, but only around nine or ten are killed by shark attacks. That's useful information that one would like to have. However, it doesn't mean that people are more afraid of toasters than they are of sharks, even if they should. Many people would rather die than give up their erroneous beliefs in favor of facts.
Question: Should you do something good?
Short answer: Not necessarily.
Long answer: The pressure many people feel to do good things is powerful as well as a bit touching, because it draws attention away from what the person in question is really interested in, and leads him/her towards the established and generally popular ideals that happens to be the talk of the town at that particular time.
It's better to do something and then consider it to be good (which is what many people do with their children) rather than to try to turn whatever it is you've done into something good (which, sadly, a lot of people also do with their children). Many works of art that have historically been considered important are often reflections of the spirit of their respective ages. If people had tried to make something good instead of something true it wouldn't have become as important, the will to do something good can often be seen as a kind of self-censorship.
Question: If you were to give one single piece of advice to a budding artist, what would it be?
Short answer: Paint the sky first and then the trees so you won't have to fit the the sky in between all the branches.
Long answer: If you want to get somewhere, you should see your work as a logical and practical process. Many people never reach the results they had wished for and instead get stuck in some meaningless physical problem, which is where a lot of silly axioms like "the path is the goal" have originated. They're used by people who've never walked the entire length of the path and actually arrived.
Question: What is art?
Short answer: A question.
Long answer: Just as a physicist is a collection of atoms trying to figure out what an atom is, so art is an invention whose purpose it is to find out just what art actually is.
Question: Don't you run the risk of deteriorating with age?
Short answer: You're kidding, right?
Long answer: No one has ever found out anything after the age of thirty, case in point - Einstein. He figured out everything as a young man and spent the remainder of his life pondering the so-called Grand Unified Theory, which he never managed to finalize. People get more experienced with age and as such are able to further develop their ideas, however the realizations come early or never at all. This is why many important works are made by ageing artists, more refined versions of the slightly clumsily performed discoveries of youth. Both stages are equally important but throughout the times, one of them has usually been considered "cooler" than the other. Avoid pretending to be part of one group when you actually belong to the other.
Question: Isn't it enough to just do whatever you want?
Short answer: Who knows what they want?
Long answer: Many people have way too large a distance between what they really want and that they think they really want. Their ideals make them confused. When the discrepancy between what you're doing and whom you really are becomes too great, indifference slips in through the gap, and even though everything looks good it doesn't really feel like all that any more. Or as Nas once put it, "when you do make the whip you like your chips ain't right, by the time you can afford it the car ain't important".
Question: Does rebelling actually serve a purpose?
Short answer: Yes, it's good for your self-confidence.
Long answer: Rebelling against something means that you know something others don't, that you've seen through all the lies, understood how bad things really are and usually you also know exactly how everything is supposed to be instead. That is a nice feeling to have. However, both the rebel and the conservative are dependent on that which endures. Thus, the danger of rebelling is that you might sacrifice your independence for the simple sake of a slight boost in self-confidence.
Question: Why do so many people have a hard time understanding art?
Short answer: Because there rarely is anything there for you to understand.
Long answer: Many people tend to confuse not understanding something with not liking it, it's usually a case of the latter when the former is spoken. However, ever since modernism begun artists have attempted to create new languages in art, if you step into a room full of people who've created new languages you're bound to be more than a little confused. Having invented a new language doesn't mean that you actually have something to say, however. Not too long ago, the artistic language was common to all people in a given culture. Everyone understood the picture on the church wall, back then the message was more important than creating a new language.
You can't understand someone who hasn't said anything, but you can like him.
Question: Which viewpoint should one espouse in terms of politics?
Short answer: A simple one, preferably also as extreme as possible.
Long answer: Having a simple and not inherently self-contradictory worldview with simple solutions often gives people plenty of power and incentive, since they don't have to waste time and energy on doubt, compromises or they weighing of pro's and con's. It's only when one's 100 percent sure that one is right that one's able to focus all one's energy into one's words and actions, regardless of how stupid they are.
Question: Are experiments important?
Short answer: Yes, but only before setting up shop.
Long answer: A chef, for instance, is able to experiment with different ingredients, but a restaurant that only serves the chef's "experiment of the day" wouldn't be in business for very long, since the purpose of experimenting should be to develop something that might eventually be considered a classic. No one should experiment for the sole purpose of creating an experiment. Experiments are fine but whenever they start turning into conventions, one should be wary. Apart from the fact that they rarely are enjoyable at that point, they've also lost their innovative function.
Question: Is it true that one only becomes known after one's death?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: 99, 99 percent of all the artists in the history of the world are made known during their lifetimes, when they die they're usually forgotten. A few exceptions occurred during the end of the 19th century, and it may very well take tens of thousands of years before that rare historical occurrence repeats itself.
Question: How do I become successful?
Short answer: Make someone happy.
Long answer: Success depends on someone having something to gain from what you're doing, whether it's them having their ideals and beliefs confirmed or being compensated ideologically, economically, aesthetically or otherwise. That is, if you're referring to success in the eyes of others. If you mean successful as pertaining to yourself, all you need is megalomania.
Question: How does one learn?
Short answer: By misunderstanding.
Long answer: You repeat and mimic, after a while you misunderstand something, at which point something of your own is created, which you then go on to repeat and mimic until you misunderstand yourself as well - and ta-da! You've learned something. Knowledge is whatever convention that happens to be the dominant one at that particular point in time, and in order to not get stuck too early one should avoid conventions, such as the convention of avoiding conventions.
Question: Is criticism beneficial?
Short answer: Yes, if pro. No, if con.
Long answer: Criticism in a learning environment is usually beneficial, since it's purpose is to improve the student's results. Criticism in new articles and whatnot varies in quality and usefulness. It may be intended to be helpful but often comes across as polemic and as intended to have the opinion of it's originator seem like the correct one. The purpose of criticism always shines through. The problem with criticism is that it's point of origin always lies in what the critic is already familiar with, and as such, it is always automatically conservative - it's impossible to have a valid opinion on a subject matter with which one's not familiar.
Question: Why do people think that some things look good?
Short answer: Because they're normal.
Long answer: Experiments have been made where ten people have been photographed, after which a digital portrait of an "average" person was created. These eleven pictures were then shown to the test subjects who were told to say which person was the best-looking. Very few people found the eleventh portrait to be the most attractive. People are very likely genetically pre-disposed to like what's normal for breeding reasons.
Question: Is it true that artists were much more skilled and knowledgeable in older days?
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: People are born as idiots who don't know or understand anything, and they die wise, filled to the brim with knowledge. Is that one of nature's mistakes? No, the problem is that it is much harder to get rid of knowledge than to obtain it. All knowledge stands in the way of progress just as dinosaurs stood in the way of primates. The small, ugly mammals that survived the natural disaster(s) that killed off the strong, fast and smart velociraptors weren't in any way better, it's just that the alternative to extinction is stagnation.
If dear, old and wisened artists never died, we'd have to shoot them. Not because they were wrong - in that case, they would have been harmless - but because they were right.
Question: How does one discuss art in an intelligent manner, at a party, for instance?
Short answer: One agrees.
Long answer: This is close to impossible. What's important is to have the listener come across as intelligent, and if one wants to make a statement, it's important to phrase it in such a way that it seems like it was actually the listener who came up with it. Going on forever about the intricacy of Hokusai's waves is pointless and usually only seems ridiculous, because just as is the case with sports, people tend to stick with a certain team whether or not they're any good. Even better is to remain quiet. No one wants to be told that they have the wrong opinions, especially not the ones with wrong opinions.