On Art & Separation
We might hold our art too preciously...But why should we let it go?
I have many many thoughts on this subject, so strap in. It’s gonna get cerebral. And long, very long. (Multiple installments to come.)
When I was at school, I remember learning—in a poetry workshop, no less—that we were going to read every poem as though the author was never speaking autobiographically. Even a piece written in first person would be referred to as having a “speaker.” It would be wrong of us to assume that the author himself is the “I” in the poem.
Not only did this give some distance for us to analyze each work more objectively, it also posed an interesting question: How much influence does an author have on their creation after it is set free in the world?
Since then, I have integrated this reading technique. I find it holds much truth, and I just cannot see how the narrative voice of any story, poem, essay, or even a memoir could be assumed to be The Author.
Now, let me clarify here: Of course the work of a writer is written by that person. And of course, if they’re writing an autobiographical story, it is about them. What I’m discussing is a little more nuanced: The voice the author uses when creating a story does not represent their entire being. It is a sliver of who they are, and it has been edited and curated over time.
Consider the notion of identity.
We all have different personas within us. Our minds separate us into different spaces according to the activities we engage in. Think about an argument where you present an opposing view to your own; you enter a slightly different mental playground, to put yourself in the very mind of your “enemy.” Or when you talk to a friend. You probably don’t discuss the same things you would with your parents or spouse, and may even guard a lot of your emotions to seem more acceptable. There are so many other examples, but hopefully you can begin to see what I mean.
When we write, we have to become several different people: the person who knows they’re writing the story, the narrator of that story, every character in that story, then the editor, reader, even publisher. Here we can see the personas very clearly.
Still, there are layers.
Writing itself is not a natural way of communicating; it’s a filter. So not only do we filter our raw thoughts by writing them in a coherent way, we also analyze them as we do that. Writing is practically three degrees removed from the original thought, possibly even four if we consider revising and editing. Anything we write that is truly about ourselves and our lives is never unfiltered. (This raises an interesting question about what makes us us and at what point filtration begins. I will explore this in a different essay.)
This means that the finished product is a mixture of at least six (definitely more) parts of you, the writer. As a reader, we experience a written work very linearly, unless we’re analyzing it critically. So we follow the narrative voice until the end, whereupon conclusions are drawn. Often, our first reaction is to assume that whatever we just read is very personal to the author, especially in specific genres, like nonfiction, poetry, or romance. When heightened emotions or intense relationships are involved, in addition to first person narration, it’s easier to assume authorial experience.
This is a shallow way to consume writing. How much more can we get out of a piece if we look at it through abstracted layers, through personas? We can begin to see a conversation happen between author and narrative voice, between narrative voice and character, between character and plot, all elements that required a slightly different authorial persona to create. I’d argue that superficially reading a piece and stopping, with no return with an analytical eye, is doing the work–and yourself–a great disservice.
It is my proposition that we cannot avoid separating the art from the artist, since time ultimately does this for us. Moreover, I also want to argue that we ought to separate the two, as it gives the art more breadth to live and touch its consumers. The closer art is to its creator, the shorter its leash, and the harder it is for an audience to fully understand and experience it.
In the next installment of this essay, I will begin to formulate this argument by examining visual art. I find it’s an easier analogy to make when discussing artistic personas and why we often need to let go of the original context of a piece and simply experience it purely, rawly.
I don’t want to be an artist who promotes the old ideas surrounding art: That to appreciate it, you must be an academic, studied in the history and culture of whatever it is you’re looking at, and be able to speak with erudite peers on the subject. Art is first and foremost, an experience. Mind, body, spirit. If you want to extend that experience to one of the three, by all means; it can only give you more. There is no one right way to do it. The wrong way is to say that there is.
By separating the art from the artist, we can return to the true intention of art, one that every artist pours into their work and hopes to evoke in their audience—experience. If your first intention is to inform or convert or argue, then I’m inclined to say that you are not producing art. Those things can come later, of course. It is my opinion that the first intention of art is the same no matter the type.
I want to say that I am not arguing for a purist approach to separating the art from the artist. I’m hoping to demonstrate that there is a place for both, and ideally, I think we ought to train ourselves to do both simultaneously. By separating the art from the artist, we have room for it to touch us more completely. By recognizing the source, we get to see the unique branding of artistic intention, something we ought to cherish as artists ourselves.
* * *
Thank you so much for reading! Stay tuned for the next installment. And let me know your thoughts in the comments, if you care to share. 😊
About the Creator
Mackenzie Davis
“When you are describing a shape, or sound, or tint, don’t state the matter plainly, but put it in a hint. And learn to look at all things with a sort of mental squint.” Lewis Carroll
Find me elsewhere.
Copyright Mackenzie Davis.
Reader insights
Outstanding
Excellent work. Looking forward to reading more!
Top insights
Expert insights and opinions
Arguments were carefully researched and presented
On-point and relevant
Writing reflected the title & theme
Easy to read and follow
Well-structured & engaging content
Eye opening
Niche topic & fresh perspectives
Masterful proofreading
Zero grammar & spelling mistakes
Compelling and original writing
Creative use of language & vocab
Heartfelt and relatable
The story invoked strong personal emotions
Keep reading
More stories from Mackenzie Davis and writers in Writers and other communities.
Do You Have a Glimmer Journal?
When I was at community college, a guest speaker came. I don’t recall her name, and barely her face, though I think she had blonde hair…She spoke about her life living on a ranch, how she had dropped her urban upbringing and went to live on a ranch in Montana, learning the hard work of keeping horses and cows and everything else. That’s why she came, you see—to talk about the book she wrote.
By Mackenzie Davis10 months ago in Writers
Hero
The word "hero" evokes images of grand gestures, capes billowing in the wind, and battles won against impossible odds. But heroism can manifest in countless ways, defying stereotypes and residing in the most unexpected corners. Here are a few ways to explore the concept of a hero in a story:
By Moharif Yulianto5 days ago in Writers
Comments (19)
Your piece has provoked (inspired?) *much* thought ... so, well done! So well done! The perspective on writing as a filter I found particularly illuminating. I would say that the revising stage adds distinctive "layers" to the filtration process. I also appreciated the reminder that first-person narrative voice is or can be (and in some ways, must be) just as much an invention as any character. This speaks to my struggle on Vocal: I come here to be a creator, not a person. (That's why I don't have my image as my thumbnail portrait.) (And now I recognize the irony of this self-disclosure.) I *want* the separation, to bring just the chosen sliver ... but the rest of me keeps getting stitched in, like Peter Pan and his shadow.
The concept of the lyric "I," the authorial persona or mask, often discomfits or perplexes students. Your exposition is lucid, careful and edifying. Deftly done!
I can honestly say this is something I've never really thought about, and now I feel this will stick with me as I continue to write. Great piece!
I can’t wait for the next instalments. Ah, I could talk about this stuff all day. Thank you for wording it so freaking well!
Mackenzie, this was such a different piece from what you usually write and publish and I am all here for it! I love how deeply thought provoking this is and the insightful questions you thrust upon us with this! It brings to mind the idea that people will interpret your work as they want, you just have to decide how you want to receive that. Meaning that often people project what form of understanding they have of particular situations and stories onto your work. They see it through their lens and for some of us it’s hard to accept because we anted it to mean something else. I love the idea of stepping back and not taking on that assumption that the narrative voice is the authors! It’s both very clever and a lot more “socially acceptable” from the perspective of the author. Way to wake my brain up with some serious cerebral discussion! I’m in love with this article/ debate/ rant (whatever we want to call it) that you have written! I think it is so important to separate the author from the art/ work because I am of the belief that not only does a really good story tell itself but it reveilles itself to the author. Meaning as the lucky person who gets to write the story, it’s our job to document this thing we’re experiencing so that we can share it with others. The story might “ours to tell” but I think it’s more than that! It’s ours to share and that’s a really special gift we are blessed with! I am very excited for the next instalment! This was such an insightful and thought provoking read, my mind is practically buzzing after this! Thank you for the morning wake up! Also congratulations on Top Story for this, it issue well earned!!! 🎉
https://vocal.media/writers/the-unlikely-duo-m21c0wb1
"When we write, we have to become several different people: the person who knows they’re writing the story, the narrator of that story, every character in that story, then the editor, reader, even publisher." It's truly a mental dance. And I agree entirely that art is an experience, the pieces that resonate most with people will captivate them.
Thank you for sharing and congrats on Top Story, if not for that I may never have found it! Really interesting concepts and extremely well written!
great
Brilliant piece on art!! Excellent work and congratulations on top story!
There you go. Congrats on Top Story, Mackenzie!
My English teacher said all pieces are unfinished, it is the reader's interpretation of the piece that completes it. That stayed with me.
You know what, this makes a lot of sense. I've never thought about it in the way you've explained here, the layers. Eagerly waiting for the next installment!
I think I mostly agree with you here. After reading the first few paragraphs though, I thought I was gonna mainly disagree. "By separating the art from the artist, we have room for it to touch us more completely. By recognizing the source, we get to see the unique branding of artistic intention, something we ought to cherish as artists ourselves." - yes! Both are important. Every piece an author writes is and must be personal. Otherwise, they don't know what they're writing about, and it's the worst thing ever a writer can do. But then, indeed, the written word, be it a poem, novel, or memoir, is passed through numerous filters and prisms by the person who penned it, sometimes intentionally, sometimes subconsciously. Playing with different styles, provoking a gamut of emotions - the purpose of any kind of writing generally is not just to tell a story, but to make the reader feel it, live it, so it's not only about the writer's personas but the readers' as well. They ought to be a part of the story. But then also, if they want to be critical of the writer's work and to see the details (and the devil), they ought to live outside the story and look through it. Aah, so many nuances! I believe the same ideas apply to the visual art as well...
I love this piece, Mackenzie and agree with many of the things you propose. Once our work is out there in the ether, it's not really just ours anymore. Even if it means something specific to us, because all art is open to interpretation based on experience. Like you said. Anyway, I probably oversimplified that there. But well done on this lovely piece and I look forward to the next installment.
There is certainly more the the artist's voice than their own. "Inspiration" is in-breath and to "expire" is to breathe out. All derivatives of the Latin verb "spirare" including "spiritus" mean breath. Although I believe we can never escape ourselves in our art, and a viewer will always be in contact with the will of the artist, I entirely agree about this separation. Great work! Look forward to more.
I love and enjoy this so much. Art sometimes surprises even the artist, a mysterious journey to insight. I'm looking forward to the next installment.
Great article, Mackenzie! This makes me think of what I tend to say to my therapist whenever she asks why I think what I think or feel what I feel or do what I do. "It's complicated." There's rarely if ever simply one motive, combined with the awareness that, even as I'm speaking, I know that I'm filtering what I say to produce a desired outcome (be that honesty, approval, sympathy, etc.). It's much the same with how I approach scripture. In seminary, we were taught to do exegesis & avoid eisegesis. But without eisegesis, we rob it of the vast majority if not all the meaning it can have for us. We don't allow ourselves to enter into the story, to reflect upon how we might have responded or understand why the characters act as they do. I love it when people begin to think about different ways a passage might be understood & what it might mean to us, especially when it's something that's never occurred to me before. I've tended to refer to this as viewing the art or passage through different lenses, but I like how you characterize them as personae, literally going that extra step to personalize it.
Mackenzie, that was excellent! I look forward to reading the other parts of your series. Like you, I believe that what an artist produces is a sliver of who they are. I like to call that the energy of a piece. And yes, it has been edited and curated over time, as you aptly mentioned. We see this with social media, most of us have personas that are used based on the situation we find ourselves in. "This means that the finished product is a mixture of at least 6 (definitely more) parts of you, the writer." - This is a fascinating statement which really speaks to the importance of context and how there are always several sides to a story. We will never really know the truth! "By separating the art from the artist, we can return to the true intention of art, one that every artist pours into their work and hopes to evoke in their audience—experience." - Yes, yes, yes!