Pioneers Without a Frontier

Whenever I'm around St. Mark's, I always think about Patti Smith. This despite the fact that I know absolutely nothing about Smith except that St. Mark's Church plays a big part in her mythology. If you're a frequent bookstore browser, you'll probably recognize Smith's book, Just Kids, as it was one of those titles that greeted you at every entrance and check out counter. It won the National Book Award a few years ago and just about everyone's reviews were glowing.

I started Just Kids today, and with subways delays both to the city and back, I'm about 75% done with it already. Verdict: It definitely measures up to all the acclaim. At its most basic, Just Kids is about being an artist. More specifically, a starving artist in 1960s New York. It's got a lot of Truth & Beauty in it too, intermixing the creative life with friendships that come and go and ultimately never leave. They'd make nice reading companions I think.

Another thing that hooked me was that the beginning of Just Kids is set in Brooklyn, as Smith moves right to my area, with a few head nods to DeKalb Ave and Myrtle Avenue, the two streets sandwiching me.

The thing that strikes me most about the book is that even though I'm three-fourths of the way through, I still wasn't able to figure out exactly what kind of artist Patti Smith was/is, until I hit the Internets. Turns out Smith is mostly famous as the "godmother of punk rock." Here's her biggest Billboard hit: "Because the Night."

But before that, Patti Smith was a poet, a visual artist, a music critic, a sort of actor, a sort of fashion trendsetter, and then finally, she became a rock star. The other subject of her book, Robert Mapplethorpe, has the same sort of confusing trajectory. He painted, he drew, he made jewelry, and he ended his life mainly identified as a photographer. Basically, the two of them were just artists, through and through. They happened to get famous for specific stuff but their message was in every medium, as the non-saying goes.

When we went to the Met a few weeks ago, I half-jokingly decided that I'm going to make a transition to becoming an "artist." Apostrophes emphasized. What I realized is that being an artist doesn't necessarily have to do with technical skill, whether you draw or sing or carve wood or push pixels around -- none of which I do, keep in mind. The most important part of being an artist, the most essential bit of being an artist, is having a point of view. It's about expression. Doing comes first, sharing comes later. (Or you could not share, up to you.)

This is no great revelation.

However, not just any P.O.V. is an "artistic" point of view. After all, everyone has a subjective viewpoint, but we're not talking about mere opinions here. Art is finding something you care about, and then trying to make other people care about it. I think.

Also, artist, craftsman, creatives, those are different things. But that's a differentiation I'm still working through. Perhaps it's too close minded me to think that they should have to be separated. But I do strongly feel that just because you can paint, you aren't necessarily an artist, etc. To be explored.

The first thing I've decided to do on my self-appointed "so you want to be an artist" journey is to start learning how to write those art blurbs. The ones about the artist's work, or explaining the specific piece installed in front of you. That's a useful skill to have, and while sometimes I think those snippets reek of art school bullshit, learning how to write in that specific b.s. language can only help elevate my eventual art from the living room to the galleries. Right?

Reading Just Kids makes a strong argument for the idea that you're either an artist or you're not. So if I'm not one now, it's highly likely I'm in the latter camp. Are my hopes dashed before they've even been formed?