GOODNIGHT, FUCKERS #970: INSPIRATIONAL FLAMES

 A while back I watched an episode of Route 66 in which one of the characters, not the boys but one of the guest stars, is talking about art and what it's like to create.

I tried my best to find which episode it was, but I'd watched it a while ago (Buz was still on the show!). I really hoped to get a clip from this one, but I just can't find it, and while I used to be good at Google, Google is no longer good at Google. Lost, it shall remain. I really hope I'm remembering the episode well enough, because the scrawl in my notebook doesn't have a lot of info.

Anyway, the character compares art to Moses seeing the burning bush in the Bible. At first I took it to mean that, once you experience a work of art that thrills you, whether it's a novel or a painting or a song or whatever, it gives you much the same sensation a prophet seeing a miracle would feel. And it's true. I usually liken it to my head blooming like a rose, but this is a pretty good analogy. Think about all the great art you've experienced and how it was so powerful it changed you, maybe even changed your perception of the world around you. Art is powerful stuff. No wonder the MAGAs are doing their best to destroy it.

But the more I thought about it, the more I think she meant the creation of art, and that analogy is even better. What does a prophet who has seen a burning bush do? They tell everyone about it. Artists have seen the burning bush. Now they must create work that expresses that feeling.

I've had revelatory ideas that stunned me many times over the course of my life. Believe it or not, Dong of Frankenstein was one of those ideas. (Don't judge my muse!) It makes a current run through my body, and I stiffen as the idea works its way through my brain. And then, unfortunately for a lot of people, I write about my vision until I have a book.

Writing is my only talent. The other artforms elude me. My drawings suck, I can't play any instrument more complicated than the mouth harp or cowbell (and I still have trouble with the cowbell), I'm no painter, don't even ask me about sculpting, etc. But my experience as a writer with the burning bush matches up easily with the character's statement. I have no choice but to believe that all the other arts and artists are the same way. It doesn't make sense otherwise.

And that brings me to AI. I used to say that, sure, AI can make art just like the Infinite Monkey Theorem can produce the complete works of Shakespeare. Now I'm not so sure. Can AI ever experience the burning bush?

Exactly.

GOODNIGHT, FUCKERS #178: AT THE RISK OF SOUNDING LIKE A TOOL . . .

All right. I know what I'm about to say is going to make me sound like a pretentious fuck. A self important prick. Maybe even a fuddy duddy. But here goes . . .


I need you all to stop referring to art as "content." Seriously. I don't generally refer to myself as an artist. I'm an entertainer. But at the same time the word "content" demeans us.


Look, I want to entertain people. I write crazy fucked up shit with the purpose of taking you away from your serious lives for at least ten minutes. Or twenty, if you're reading a few chapters of a bigger work. My secondary purpose is to say something important. I want to make people feel emotions, but for those who are looking for something deeper, you'll find it. Even crazy shit like "Monster Cock" means something. It's a criticism of our phallocentric society destroying us. But that's there only if you're looking for something.


Alan Moore once said that there should be some kind of purpose to everything you write, and he's right. Behind all the crazy shit that happens in my work there is always a point. If you want it, that is.


When you refer to art as content, you're reducing what we do. To put it another way, remember English Bob from UNFORGIVEN? He has a monologue about how if you tried to assassinate royalty, your hand would shake and you wouldn't be able to do it. But if you tried to assassinate a president . . . why not assassinate a president? I look at the difference between art and content the same way.


Content takes up time in your life. It's meaningless. It will give you a quick laugh, but then it's out of your system. Art is not that. It gives you something to think about. Maybe you get a laugh out of it, sure, but it means something. The best of art actually changes the world.


That movie you just saw? It's not content. That book you just read? Not content. That TV show you like? It's *probably* not content. Shit, even those YouTube videos you watch are probably art. I had a conversation with a friend about whether or not podcasts are art, and I think they are. To a degree.


Content takes up time. Art makes a difference. Stop confusing the two. This has been a public service announcement from a guy who probably spends too much time looking at the lint in his navel, but still.