Tell It Slant?

I was introduced to the art of Kevin Gilbert this week. A brilliant musician, Gilbert was successful in collaborations with The Tuesday Music Club. I spent roughly an hour listening to his rock opera "The Shaming of the True" with friends, and afterwords launched into a discussion about this elusive thing we call art.

The album follows the saga of wannabe musician Johnny Virgil as he tries to make it in LA. Laced with vivid, if explicit, images set against a melange of amazing musicianship, you can taste Gilbert's bitterness for the industry in every measure. He takes the listener on a step-by-step journey of Virgil, but in the end, it is clear "Shaming" is autobiographical.

The conversations that occurred after the record stopped spinning were challenging, emotional, and important. We talked about the content of the album - its "shock value" - and if "Shaming" would have the same impact on the listener if formatted to FCC standards. Some of us thought the album could exclude some of the unpleasant imagery and have a similar impact. Others were convinced that, though you could make the record "cleaner", it wouldn't have the same value, and certainly wouldn't leave the same impression.

I sided with the latter of opinions. So often art is used to tell the truth, to show vulnerable moments on screen, cameos of brutality through audio, a single snapshot of pain on canvas. Artists see the world in a way that many cannot; therefore, it is a gift to show how we see the world through media. With the gift comes a responsibility to portraying an integral world: the truth in its entirety as it relates to the moment or story the artists attempt to capture.

As the discussion explored the implications of art, I was reminded of that poem by Emily Dickinson, "Tell all the truth, but tell it slant," and I wondered if she was valid in this advice. She argues that being confronted with the whole truth head-on is too overwhelming. The truth must be given in small fragments of light; otherwise, the world would go blind. Perhaps she has a point, but I cannot agree with her. The truth shouldn't be some puzzle one should have to piece together or some shadowed element one hopes to see in the right light.

Truth through art should be presented in purity - holistically, and not on its side. That is not to say art has to be obvious. Sometimes the artist is vague, leaving conclusions to be drawn by the observer. Elements used by the artist often shock, often challenge the consumer to think about something in a different context or unique form. But artists should never feel the pressure to compromise the means by which they present the truth they see to avoid offending an audience.

Art is an invitation, after all. Some will accept art and be challenged by it, and others will dismiss it, if only for content. Reaction should never inhibit artists from expressing the truth they see, for they would be doing a disservice to both their audience and, more importantly to themselves.

Art should be an abstract catalyst for truth, and the two should work in tandem.

As an artist, it's a daily struggle, a constant questioning if I'm actually getting it, if the way I use art to show the world images of itself is proactive or inhibiting. Therein lies the rub of art and how it feverishly and neurotically drives the artist in this struggle of becoming and becoming and becoming....