Lets start with the word

By chance, or RSS, I can upon an interview by my long standing favorite, David Sylvian. Having recently released the much-debated record, “Manafon“, he explains in a precise yet leisurely manner his view on his own work. Without focusing on the fact that Sylvian is an absolutely brilliant artist, a statement he made in the interview (the one in the blockqoute below), made me ponder how that particular sparkling tidbit of insight actually applies to other areas of life as well. Hell, it applies to all areas of life, really.

Below is the quote and the particular question from the interview in its context:

“Do you consider the “listener” when you’re making your records?  I mean, do you care about what they’ll take from your work, if they’ll like it? Or, to misquote Oscar Wilde, is any opinion better than having no opinion?

To create a work of any kind is an act of communication therefore the aim is to lend the material as much clarity as is possible without compromising it in anyway. You work in service of the composition. It makes demands and you do your best to adequately respond. Of course one cares what listeners take away from the experience but what you can’t do is anticipate a specific audience’s response to it or have one in mind whilst creating it. The strength of a piece comes from its internal logic, that it’s true to itself. That the piece might speak to a very small number of people isn’t its concern. The main consideration is that the essence of the work is uncompromised and communicated to the best of your abilities.

As to whether people like it or not, I’d prefer to think that with a work like manafon, they’re possibly having an audio experience unlike one they might’ve had before. There’s no intention to repeat an experience someone might’ve had, say, with Brilliant trees. We’re saddled with our past for better or worse but each individual release should rise or fall on its own merits.

I’ve always had to deal with the fact that, whatever I produce, I will upset or alienate a proportion of my audience, occasionally to the point of losing them altogether. Some might complain the work is too ‘out there’ while others complain that the work isn’t experimental enough, that I’m merely repeating myself. Consequently, over the years I’ve lost some listeners and gained others.

I guess I’m one of those infuriatingly ‘inconsistent’ artists who don’t tailor the work to any specific market therefore there will always be dissenters regardless of what I produce. Having said that I am incredibly grateful to those who’ve stuck with me, given me the benefit of the doubt, and taken pains to understand the reasons and the possible benefits for the, sometimes radical, changes in my output.”

Yes. Its true. If you have any sort of integrity and goal in life, independent choices you make will by their very nature alienate some people and befriend others. The more difficult choice you make the more likely you are to alienate, rather than befriend. The question is whether or not this will happen, or if its right for it to happen – it will, anyway. In any decent sort of life, it will. The question is where, exactly, does one draw the line – and I’m not speaking of art, but rather of life. Art is an independent agent. Life is not. So if we wish to live with integrity, and create room for our individuality – where do we draw the line against alienation not as a part of growth, but as a stereotypical biproduct of evolving?