So I'm digging through the recent notebook I finished and here's a page that got me thinking:
"Maybe in all of my many mires of doubt, the one question that continually peeks it's head below the grinding dark clouds is 'Do I need to like other [visual] art to be a great artist? Particularly, do I need to like my contemporaries [in visual art] to be a great artist?" I feel deeply torn, in that I highly value the intellectual rigor, research and formal tightness of the works swirling around me in Los Angeles. I value their philosophically rooted approach and sense of wit. Yet when I go out to a gallery, even with good work by a well-advanced artist, they don't really move me the same way that Daido Moriyama, Kim Stanley Robinson, China Meiville or late-60's Miles Davis does [or even the way that bands like Svart Crown or authors like John Crowley have been rocking my world.] I feel like balancing my relationshp with the work immediately adjacent to me, both in input and output is very tough for me because I really fear just re-making old ideas from the past that feel good, like M. John Harrison often lambasted 'modern' anthologies for doing during the '70's, but nor do I want to deny how forms, ideas, works and emotional resonance from other times, medias and modes might help to form a foundation for my new work."